27.5" AM/Enduro frames

[Catch22]

I would have to say high speed cornering is my weakness right now. Pointing down rock gardens is not what kills my overall time now. (although with more travel and longer WB on the Warden my speed will definitely improve) What really kills me is having to take lumpy flat or off-camber turns slower than I know I should have to. Like I said before, with my current rig its like my tires are off the ground more than they are on. Chatter for days. With a lower BB and suspension that actually works I am sure my cornering speed will pick up dramatically.

Fitness wise I am training like I will be racing XC, but adding more strength training for my core and upper body so that I can pedal my ass off on the flats and have the strength needed to power through the downhill sections.

Oh, and I just measured my current stem since I bought it a while ago. Its 60mm. I knew 70 or 90 sounded way too long.

If there is one thing the Knolly 4x4 stuff does really well it's maintaining incredible traction in the chop and under braking. You should see a lot of improvement with the keeping traction while cornering issue with the Warden, especially if it's got anything that's not a Fox CTD rear shock.

[joetron]

FWIW I've spent the last 15 years of my life trying to figure out how to turn a bicycle on dirt... Its akin to a golf swing or similar. You can work on it the rest of your life and no matter the tool - its just plain hard. Some days you have it, others not so much...

Damn straight dude, I feel ya!

[D(C)]

This has been a very interesting discussion to follow.

I don't pretend to be an expert so feel free to tell me I have it wrong, but much of my outlook on biking technique and gear stems from my experience with skiing. I buy the wheelbase argument - too long is like having skis that are too long. But I think fore-aft balance is a factor as well, akin to mounting point and ramp angle on skis. This is where reach, stack and chainstay length come in.

Think about a centre-mounted, jibby ski. The ski is very nimble and quick, but it is difficult to powerfully engage the sidecut and the tips may dive in pow, forcing you to stay farther back. A lot of this is preference, but with a more traditional racing technique, I prefer a farther back mount where I can drive the tips. I find the same thing with a longer front end on a bike, where I can drive the bars into corners and have more bike in front of me when riding down something steep. Agility at low speeds suffers a bit just like an RC 112 won't ski trees like a JJ, but when speeds pick up you can really get that bike to carve.

Ramp angle is your stack/bar height. If your toes are too low, you won't be able to engage the sidecut. And too high and you'll be tipped past the balance point. Adding a couple spacers under the stem of my AM bike improved my cornering confidence immensely, giving me a more natural alignment for driving the bars.

Over the winter, I picked up a size M Kona Taro hardtail and that's where it all clicked. The bike was significantly longer in front than my size M Cannondale Jekyll, and the 29er wheels put the bars right where I wanted them. Although the Taro has no suspension in back, I felt more confident on it a lot of the time than on my Jekyll. I had the opportunity to swap my M Jekyll frame for a large and I now have the same confidence driving into corners as on my Taro. My Taro has a 68 deg HA and my Jekyll is at around 67, but the longer front end and short stem adds stability while maintaining a nimble bike. I'm 5'8" btw.

So the ingredients for me are longer front end and slightly higher bars, but with a steeper head angle to keep the wheelbase in check.

[shirk]

Is there any video of Chris Porter riding?

I've read some of his articles on geo, it's some of what inspired me to go long on my build.

But real world riding on my local trails if proving that perhaps for me I've found the upper limit. If in racing mode I do suspect I am faster on the long bike, but it's more work. If just trying to noodle around and simply ride and I don't put in that extra effort it feels like I am not only slower but much more taxing.

[JeffreyJim]

Woo - FWIW my overall times on the Sanction have improved. And I don't feel like I'm going any faster in the straight sections... Its the corners I feel confident on that bike.

I'm also big at 6'2" with long legs and long arms...

What I'm getting at is I'm not sure a 48" wheelbase is "long" as much as it just "fits" no more than a 39" wheelsbase would be considered too small for you...

[kidwoo]

I think my dirtjumper is 41........

I'm just giving you shit. At 6'2" that's really not that big of a deal. Tron bike turns are fun. A video of me trying to ride your bike fast around some of the switchbacks on blacks canyon would entertaining.

[Roxtar]

I finally found out about Chris Porter last month. Very opinionated. Guy worked with street bikes in the past. Got into DH racing in the 90s. Owns and runs the UK importer for Fox suspension (MOJO). Ran a WC DH team. Solid rider from what I can see.
Porter is in the bike industry and has access to whatever suspension set-up or bike frame he wants...

I really can't find a whole lot to agree with here.
All of his opinions seem to be purely DH based.
63* head angle?
51" WB?
On a trail bike? Try changing direction on that pig in anything even remotely flat or tight.

The comment on rearward travel is just silly. Of course it still has to roll over it. Rearward travel basically lessens the angle of any hit. Obviously, this allows you to get past the obstacle smoother and thus, faster.
I rode a Canfield Jedi this year. The Jedi has 2.5" of rearward travel at the beginning of it's stroke. This travel path made big hits feel far less big. It just blew through rocks like nothing else I'd ever tried. It also fixed operator errors; casing a jump became no big deal. That said, I wouldn't want it on a trail bike since it creates handling issues that get ugly on flatter ground.

[kidwoo]

The comment on rearward travel is just silly. Of course it still has to roll over it. Rearward travel basically lessens the angle of any hit. Obviously, this allows you to get past the obstacle smoother and thus, faster.
I rode a Canfield Jedi this year. The Jedi has 2.5" of rearward travel at the beginning of it's stroke. This travel path made big hits feel far less big. It just blew through rocks like nothing else I'd ever tried. It also fixed operator errors; casing a jump became no big deal. That said, I wouldn't want it on a trail bike since it creates handling issues that get ugly on flatter ground.

Yeah you pretty much have to have brain blinders on regarding rearward axle paths if you've ridden some of the canfields or something like an old foes dh mono. Because they do accomplish one thing pretty uniquely. And it's not like every obstacle has another equally spaced and sized one right after it. I don't think they're universally awesome or anything bikes like that corner like turds but you can pretty much just run into things and they won't really hang up.

I kind of wish the a-arms on sleds followed a little more rearward trajectory sometimes.