Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7
Results 151 to 174 of 174
  1. #151
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    7,544
    Quote Originally Posted by dcpnz View Post
    ^^^
    So with "modern" bike geometry does pedaling position i.e. knee in relation to bottom bracket, no longer have much relevance??

    Seems everyone basically prioritizes long reach and slack head tube angle for descending prowess. That then forces a steep seat tube angle to keep weight forward when climbing. In so doing traditional metrics about knee in relation to bottom bracket are completely tossed out the window. Or is that just a roadie concept with little relevance to mtb??
    I think people have realized that proper leg position to get maximum power and efficiency matters less on a mountain bike than having a good body position to keep weight forward on steep climbs. Any efficiency gains are outweighed by the extra effort that it takes to keep from looping out on steep trails.

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,571
    Quote Originally Posted by dcpnz View Post
    ^^^
    So with "modern" bike geometry does pedaling position i.e. knee in relation to bottom bracket, no longer have much relevance??

    Seems everyone basically prioritizes long reach and slack head tube angle for descending prowess. That then forces a steep seat tube angle to keep weight forward when climbing. In so doing traditional metrics about knee in relation to bottom bracket are completely tossed out the window. Or is that just a roadie concept with little relevance to mtb??
    Google "the myth of KOPS" and see what you find. Road bikes would be using dramatically steeper STA's too, except they're literally banned by the UCI. Hour records have been invalidated after the fact and tri bikes generally go steeper than UCI-legal--because they can. I find a steeper angle is more efficient pretty much any time I'm pushing the pedals hard, and obviously moreso when climbing. It may be coincidental that slack HA's need steeper STA's for better weight distribution, but I haven't found a downside in the 76-77 degree range. The Yeti SB130 and Spot Mayhem are good examples.

    A few years back Scott had a switch on their Genius bike that would adjust the shocks and tip you forward about a degree. It felt almost as good as dropping a gear lower (too bad the bike sucked at fun things).

  3. #153
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Sonoma & Truckee
    Posts
    9,540
    Uh oh, now we're going to get droppers that move both vertically and horizontally, so you can go steeper for the climb. ;-)

    Actually, I'm sure it's already been tried.

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,571
    Yup. Curve the seat tube so it's offset rearward but tip the top forward. If you want a lower effective angle when dropped; both those bikes had me wondering if that would be a good idea or not.

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    6,865
    Quote Originally Posted by TahoeJ View Post
    Uh oh, now we're going to get droppers that move both vertically and horizontally, so you can go steeper for the climb. ;-)

    Actually, I'm sure it's already been tried.
    Wasn't there an older version of the thudbuster-type design that you could lock into place at various heights?
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    in the trench
    Posts
    6,198
    Added bonus of steep sa is when you drop the dropper it’s easier to get behind the seat on the downs

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,779
    Quote Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio View Post
    Wasn't there an older version of the thudbuster-type design that you could lock into place at various heights?
    Height-Right.

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    7,544
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveVt View Post
    Height-Right.
    Height Rite didn't have a rearward swing like the Thudbuster. I don't recall a suspension seatpost that could be locked in place, but I guess I never paid that much attention to those things.

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    6,865
    This was like 20+ years ago or something, I remember watching some old video of people doing "extreme mountain biking" and it could just be my poor memory confusing someone with a Moxey showing how it articulated without the elastomer in place, and mixing that up with a memory of someone adjusting their QR seatpoast in the same video. But the idea of a QR-lockable Moxey or other parallelogram type post, that could be remotely actuated like a dropper has recently intrigued me as a more biomechanically efficient dropper post design that also gets the seat out of the way of the inside of your thigh/knee when cornering.

    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    in the trench
    Posts
    6,198
    So many negative things with those. They’d swing back and limit how far you could get back and low, weight and up high, they all broke, catapult effect
    They’re have a resurgence on commuter bikes. Good application there, on hardtails where you don’t go down steep trails. A comfort thing for your ass when you don’t need full suspension from your feet up for traction

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    7,544
    They'd also result in a lot of back tire - seat conflicts. Longer travel bikes buzz seats enough as it is.

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio View Post
    Wasn't there an older version of the thudbuster-type design that you could lock into place at various heights?
    I strongly recall a parallelogram swing seatpost that had multiple positions, one of which was more forward for climbing. Mid-early 90's. Probably have an article in my old MBA collection.

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Land of Brine Shrimp and Magic Underwear
    Posts
    5,807
    Quote Originally Posted by ACH View Post
    You forgot, "and nobody cares"...
    Name:  IMG_2111.jpg
Views: 176
Size:  13.1 KB

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonny Snow View Post
    I strongly recall a parallelogram swing seatpost that had multiple positions, one of which was more forward for climbing. Mid-early 90's. Probably have an article in my old MBA collection.
    I remember this too. Definitely had at least three positions, including a forward one, and was cable actuated IIRC.

    To address your comment about steep seat angles being a side effect of long reach and slack head angles, maybe partly. If so though, it's a happy coincidence because it undeniably makes things a lot better. I'd say it's more that the long reaches opened up that space to make it possible. IMO today's heavy, slack, long travel bikes still climb comparably or better to yester-years' light weight XC bikes with steeper head tubes and slacker seat tubes.

    In terms of these trends creating a less efficient pedal position r/t the bottom bracket, I thought this too at first. Then I realised the seat tubes on TT bikes are as steep as they can legally make them and those guys are putting down serious power. As mentioned above, same with Tri bikes, and they're all about efficiency.
    There's nothing better than sliding down snow... flying through the air.

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    23,894
    It was called the PowerPost.
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  15. #165
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Land of Brine Shrimp and Magic Underwear
    Posts
    5,807
    Dude!

    Name:  powerpost2.jpg
Views: 166
Size:  76.4 KB
    There's nothing better than sliding down snow... flying through the air.

  16. #166
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by beaterdit View Post
    To address your comment about steep seat angles being a side effect of long reach and slack head angles, maybe partly. If so though, it's a happy coincidence because it undeniably makes things a lot better. I'd say it's more that the long reaches opened up that space to make it possible. IMO today's heavy, slack, long travel bikes still climb comparably or better to yester-years' light weight XC bikes with steeper head tubes and slacker seat tubes.
    Just to be clear, the main driver to these geometry changes is wheelbase. If you stretch wheelbase by 6" in your average trail bike while simultaneously going to a more upright riding position, you need to compensate with a slack head angle, upright seat tube, short stem and longer reach dimension - because people's dimensions haven't changed.

    In the 90's, hardtails typically had a 41.5" to 42" wheelbase. Lots of these new bikes are at nearly 48". I'm perfectly happy with the stability of 46" while still keeping some maneuverability.

    As far as climbing goes, I don't think anyone who is making the claim that new bikes climb better has ridden a 90's XC hardtail recently.

  17. #167
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Southeast New York
    Posts
    6,093
    Quote Originally Posted by grinch View Post
    So many negative things with those. They’d swing back and limit how far you could get back and low, weight and up high, they all broke, catapult effect
    They’re have a resurgence on commuter bikes. Good application there, on hardtails where you don’t go down steep trails. A comfort thing for your ass when you don’t need full suspension from your feet up for traction
    Wut?? Steep with no dropper on a ht FTW. I also use a suspension post, this https://cirruscycles.com/products/kinekt-2-1-aluminum

  18. #168
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    In a van... down by the river
    Posts
    2,051
    Quote Originally Posted by gravitylover View Post
    Wut?? Steep with no dropper on a ht FTW. I also use a suspension post, this https://cirruscycles.com/products/kinekt-2-1-aluminum
    This explains so much...


  19. #169
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    slc
    Posts
    9,153
    Quote Originally Posted by skaredshtles View Post
    This explains so much...

    Seriously. Dropper almost seems even more critical on a HT so you can fully utilize your biological suspension.

  20. #170
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    in the trench
    Posts
    6,198
    Quote Originally Posted by gravitylover View Post
    Wut?? Steep with no dropper on a ht FTW. I also use a suspension post, this https://cirruscycles.com/products/kinekt-2-1-aluminum
    Can’t do the hard tail . I’m too beat. That thing gives me slashbacks of demoing a “softride” bike in the early 90’s. Going along the flat”this feels cool, sooo comfy”. Drop into the first switchback and”holy fuck I almost just died”. Can’t believe I didn’t get fired out the front end. That post you have looks refined and might have some dampening but at that weight I’d be looking at a plus size rear tire or light weight full sus. My definition of hardtail in my og comment was meant as “commuter” . I’d have that post on an e-commuter

  21. #171
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    In a van... down by the river
    Posts
    2,051
    Quote Originally Posted by grinch View Post
    Can’t do the hard tail . I’m too beat. That thing gives me slashbacks of demoing a “softride” bike in the early 90’s. Going along the flat”this feels cool, sooo comfy”. Drop into the first switchback and”holy fuck I almost just died”. Can’t believe I didn’t get fired out the front end.
    Similar experience on a Trek Y-22 with a *USELESS* Fox Alps shock on it. I don't believe that the shock even HAD a rebound adjustment. Or if it did, it was broken.

  22. #172
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    in the trench
    Posts
    6,198
    Quote Originally Posted by skaredshtles View Post
    Similar experience on a Trek Y-22 with a *USELESS* Fox Alps shock on it. I don't believe that the shock even HAD a rebound adjustment. Or if it did, it was broken.
    Fuck yes exactly. I remember distinctly the look of fear in my buddies eyes as he was getting jacked on his fisher y bike equivalent to your trek. Thankfully urt’s weren’t in vogue much longer than sus posts. Another design best suited to the commuter market

  23. #173
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    In a van... down by the river
    Posts
    2,051
    Quote Originally Posted by grinch View Post
    Fuck yes exactly. I remember distinctly the look of fear in my buddies eyes as he was getting jacked on his fisher y bike equivalent to your trek. Thankfully urt’s weren’t in vogue much longer than sus posts. Another design best suited to the commuter market
    I'm not even sure URT was suited for that.

    Fortunately, I drove mine into my garage.

  24. #174
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Cuntecticut
    Posts
    1,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Dantheman View Post
    Seriously. Dropper almost seems even more critical on a HT so you can fully utilize your biological suspension.
    This. I'm pretty sure I'd give up suspension before giving up my dropper post at this point.

    Well, maybe not all suspension. Hardtail only but not giving up the dropper post? Okay, can do. Full suspension all the time but no dropper post at all? Fuck that.
    Florence Nightingale's Stormtrooper

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •