i777777o70696e6b62696b65o636f6dz.oszar.com
Open in
urlscan Pro
172.67.220.76
Public Scan
Submitted URL: http://i777777o70696e6b62696b65o636f6dz.oszar.com/news/what-exactly-is-outdated-mountain-bike-geometry.html
Effective URL: https://i777777o70696e6b62696b65o636f6dz.oszar.com/news/what-exactly-is-outdated-mountain-bike-geometry.html
Submission: On August 22 via api from US — Scanned from DE
Effective URL: https://i777777o70696e6b62696b65o636f6dz.oszar.com/news/what-exactly-is-outdated-mountain-bike-geometry.html
Submission: On August 22 via api from US — Scanned from DE
Form analysis 1 forms found in the DOM
POST
<form action="" method="POST" style="all:unset;float:left;">
<input type="hidden" name="URL_Adresi" value="https://www.pinkbike.com/news/what-exactly-is-outdated-mountain-bike-geometry.html">
<select name="DNS_Adresi" onchange="this.form.submit()" style="all:unset;border:1px solid silver;border-width:0;margin:0px 0px 0px 20px;background-color:transparent;color:black;line-height:20px;text-align:left;padding:0 5px;font-size:14px;">
<option value="0" selected="true">Otomatik - 198.90.5.100</option>
<option value="11">CloudFlare DNS</option>
<option value="12">Türk Telekom DNS</option>
<option value="13">Google DNS</option>
<option value="14">Open DNS</option>
</select>
</form>Text Content
Pinkbike.com Powered by Outside * Log in * Register New User * News * Originals * Podcast * Reviews * Events * First Looks * Friday Fails * PB Racing * Tech * Travel * Fantasy * BuySell * Community * Forums * Community Blogs * Photos * Videos * Fantasy League DH * Places Directory * Trailforks * Shop * More * Travel * Forums * Blogs * Photos * Videos * Directory * Trailforks WHAT EXACTLY IS "OUTDATED" MOUNTAIN BIKE GEOMETRY? Aug 19, 2024 by Seb Stott FollowFollowing Share Tweet You must login to Pinkbike. Don't have an account? Sign up Join Pinkbike Login Add to Favorites 251 Comments Is this 2015 Trek Remedy unrideable now? If you're in the market for a secondhand bike that's been around a few years, or considering moving on from your own, you might ask yourself if a modern mountain bike really handles better than an older one. A bike's geometry defines how it rides more fundamentally than any other aspect of its design, and mountain bike geometry has transformed over recent years. But what exactly counts as "outdated" vs "new-school" geometry? And do older bikes necessarily ride worse? First off, let's be specific about the differences between modern and "old school" geometry. The reach, head angle (HA), wheelbase (WB) and effective seat angle (SA) are the key measurements that have changed over the years. • Longer Reach: Modern bikes feature a longer reach (the horizontal distance between the bottom bracket and the top of the head tube), providing more room to maneuver and making the bike feel more stable at high speeds and in technical terrain. This is usually teamed with shorter stems (40-50 mm) that keep the cockpit from feeling too stretched out, while also making the steering more predictable and direct. Modern trail and enduro bikes typically have a reach figure of around 450-460 mm in a size medium and over 500 mm in the largest size. Ten years ago, typical reach numbers were around 30-50 mm shorter. • Slacker Head Angle: The angle of the steering axis and fork has become much less steep. Modern trail and enduro bikes have head angles around 63-65 degrees. Ten years ago, it was more like 66-69 degrees. This makes the bike more stable on descents, as it positions the front wheel further out in front and makes the steering less twitchy, reducing the risk of the front wheel "jackknifing" (turning suddenly away from straight ahead) in technical sections. The downside is lazier/heavier steering at low speeds. • Longer Wheelbase: A longer wheelbase contributes to greater stability at high speeds and over rough terrain, making the bike more confidence-inspiring and less prone to pitching. The downside is more steering input is required to negotiate tight turns. • Steeper (effective) Seat Angle: The effective seat tube angle (the slope of a line connecting the bottom bracket to the top of the seat post) is much steeper in modern bikes. Typical angles have gone from 73-75 degrees ten years ago to 76-80 degrees today. This positions the rider more forward, improving pedalling efficiency for climbing, while making it easier to keep enough weight on the front tire to steer and balance. Such seat angles were not practical when reach figures were shorter, because they would place the rider's hips too close to the handlebar. Out on the trail How does this add up in the real world? Modern bikes are designed to excel at higher speeds and on more demanding terrain than their predecessors. Their geometry makes them more stable and confidence-inspiring when tackling the kind of terrain usually reserved for DH bikes back in the day: steep chutes, big rocks, and big air. This may come at the expense of manoeuvrability at slow speeds and shallow gradients, but thanks to steeper seat tube angles, modern trail bikes are more capable when pointed uphill as well as down. Overall, it's not controversial to say that modern bikes ride better than those of ten years ago - mostly thanks to their geometry. But what about a bike from just four or five years ago? The Specialized Enduro came out just over four years ago but, with the possible exception of the seat angle, its geometry numbers wouldn't look out of place if it was released today. How modern is modern geometry? The truth is that bike geometry is still evolving. There never will come a time when bike designers say, "Yep, that's it - these are the numbers bikes should have from now on. Let's all go home." But geometry trends that were going gangbusters in the 2010s have certainly slowed down lately. The Specialized Enduro above hasn't been updated in almost half a decade but doesn't look out of place today. If you're in the market for a bike that's much older than 2020, it will generally have noticeably different geometry and handling compared to a new equivalent, and the further back you go, the bigger the gap will be. There are exceptions, such as the Nicolai Geometron or Pole Evolink, which had similar geometry to today's bikes (and in some ways more extreme) back in 2015. Mondraker was another pioneer, with modern reach numbers by 2014. Can you modernize an old bike's geometry? Just because a bike has been around a while, that doesn't mean it needs to be replaced to experience up-to-date handling. Take my other half's 2015 Mondraker Foxy (above). With a 160 mm fork (up from the 140 mm stock fork), a -2 degree headset and the saddle slammed fully forward on the seatpost, its key numbers (reach, head angle, wheelbase, effective seat angle) aren't far off what you'd find new in 2024. Sure, it still has non-Boost axles, a pair of 27.5" wheels and abominable cable routing. But as far as handling goes, it's solid. Throw in an upgraded shock, tires and brakes and it still very much does the business. So if you're sitting on an older bike or considering buying one, bear in mind that you can learn from the latest crop of bikes without having to fork out for one. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted In: Reviews and Tech Seb Stott Author Info: seb-stott Member since Dec 29, 2014 330 articles Share Tweet Add to Favorites Report Must Read This Week Spotted: New Shimano Brakes & DH Drivetrain 66003 views First Ride: Santa Cruz Bronson V5 - The Mini-Nomad 58197 views LoopsDrive is a Fully External Tension-Based Hub System 52378 views What Exactly Is "Outdated" Mountain Bike Geometry? 46905 views Pinkbike Poll: Is Your Mountain Bike Tire Choice Practical, Aspirational, or Delusional? 42124 views Review: Fox Releases New Transfer Neo Wireless Dropper Post 40137 views Opinion: Don't Get Rid of the Ports - High End MTB Frames Should Still Work With Cable Operated Drivetrains 35232 views Red Bull Announces Men's Rider Lineup for Rampage 2024 28839 views Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox PB Newsletter Signup 251 Comments Score Time Who Faved * * * 362 7 browner (3 days ago) I remember 2015, we were all over the place, we were flying over the top of berms, our forks rubber, our rims cheese, our little tyres popping, we were absolutely f*cked and we had no idea. Thankfully everything got 1 to 2% better and suddenly we were sick, everything was rad, we were flying over the tops of doubles - but then they got 100% more electric, and we were f*cked, we were crawling up hills, our little legs were rubber, our electricity cheese, we had no idea. [Reply] * * * 190 2 Obidog FL (3 days ago) no-one needs to know about your rim cheese [Reply] * * * 25 1 bodingus (3 days ago) I remember those days. The head tube angle of my trail bike was 68. It caused me to go OTB over a small rock. If I had a 66 degree angle and 2.6” tires I could’ve avoided the whole incident. [Reply] * * * 33 0 RimCyclery (3 days ago) @Obidog: Just read a great book about the cycling history of Grand Junction, CO that mentioned a group of riders back 100 years ago that used buttermilk as tubular tire sealant. Worked well until they eventually flatted and rider gets sprayed with rancid wheel cheese! [Reply] * * * 23 0 bdamschen FL (3 days ago) @Obidog: someone should tell him they can fix that at his local bike shop. Just walk on in and ask them for a $50 Rim Job. Problem solved. [Reply] * * * 1 0 p0rtal00 (3 days ago) @bdamschen: www.pinkbike.com/photo/27111451 [Reply] * * * 11 6 rivercitycycles FL (3 days ago) Outdated geometry is when a large water bottle can't fit within the front triangle and no internal storage. There I said it. [Reply] * * * 8 0 asteezc1 (3 days ago) My 2013 Banshee Rune is surprisingly modern geo, head angle is 0.5 1 degree off and reach only 1cm different. Frankly I find them too slack and prefer the shorter wheelbase. It already charges well, I wanted a better climber if anything [Reply] * * * 4 2 Stickman1029 FL (2 days ago) That must have been before BOOOOOOOOSSSSTTTTTTTT And whatever the hell that Pivot megasuperstupid Boost standard was, that no one remembers. [Reply] * * * 4 0 Lagr1980 FL (2 days ago) @asteezc1: and you could get boost dropouts. banshee rules. [Reply] * * * 2 0 freebikeur (2 days ago) @Lagr1980: Have owned two: Spitfire and Rune. It was a mix of great and terrible things. Sorta "half-baked" [Reply] * * * 1 0 canelon FL (2 days ago) @freebikeur: What terrible things were that? Just curious, still on my Rune MY15 [Reply] * * * 2 0 freebikeur (2 days ago) @canelon: I spent the most time on the Spit but they're similar. The geo was truly exceptional, so much so that it was basically writing cheques the suspension could not cash, not enough progression for anything remotely agressive (I'm 70kg). The stock Fox float with "custom" tune was clearly underdamped and underbuilt, but even with a CC DB air I was bottoming everywhere with compression and rebound to the max + tokens, wich compromised the rest of the ride as a result. Then the terrible: I had the generaton with cracking welds at the shock mounts at a ptime where Banshee was taking over small stockists in the EU and nobody knew who should take this up, eventually got a crash replacement discount (joke!) for a next gen frame where bearing/bushings seats were ever-so slightly misaligned, resulting in overwear and play/loosening of the hardware. The frame itself was bomb-proof but quite heavy and sluggish for a 140mm, with no abilities to mount a water bottle inside. But on the right track on the right day it really was a blast. [Reply] * * * 4 0 nyhc00 (2 days ago) @freebikeur: My V2 Spitfire is still one of my most favorite bikes and i've had a lot of bikes. [Reply] * * * 3 0 Lagr1980 FL (2 days ago) @freebikeur: for each experience like this one, there are 100x untold good experiences.. 3 banshees so far, no single issue, still a 1st gen darkside being ridden hard by my son [Reply] * * * 2 0 freebikeur (2 days ago) @nyhc00: I'd maybe not go as far, but I really have fond memories of that bike as well. It really had something in its geo that could turn it into a wild cat. I really don't hold any grudges against the brand, I've seen far far worst. But yeah it was not perfect. At that time every bike was bottoming out and aftermarket linkages to increase progression and tokens were all the rage. Ironicaly, the geo was eye opening on where the suspension platform needed to go to match the new found speeds. [Reply] * * * 2 0 scotttherider FL (1 days ago) @asteezc1: have a large 2016 darkside. Compared the numbers with a modern Medium dh frame.... saved myself a big purchase by rebuilding it as my wife's new dh bike. [Reply] * * * 1 0 Jaffa1 (5 hours ago) Funniest comment I've read in ages. [Reply] * * * 1 0 nyhc00 (4 hours ago) @freebikeur: My Spitfire was essentially a big bmx bike, 150mm fork with a coil rear shock and rode the bike park with it more than local trails. [Reply] * * * 267 35 Saidrick (3 days ago) What’s missing from this article is that every change to a bikes geometry comes with a draw back, don’t let the marketing tell you otherwise: I have been riding for 25+ years , and have ridden everything from old school hard tails, to modern dh bikes. Current bike is a modern trail bike( ibis mojo 4). Here’s what the people trying to sell bikes won’t tell you: Longer wheelbases are not good if you ride on old school hiking trails, the turns are so tight that you have lift up the rear tire to get thru it( a stopper). Super slack head angles mean that the bike needs more time and distance to set up for turns and will make mellow trails feel boring. Steeper seat angles are great if you’re 6’4”, for the rest of us, it increases pressure on the hands, wears out the legs faster and causes leg cramps for me at night( that don’t happen when I ride on the gravel bike). And again, it’s meant for Whistler and Northshore crazy steep riding. Longer reach is good for super steeps stuff, but can stretch out your body if you do big rides. And finally, all this adds weight to your bike, a lot of weight. Which will make climbing worse, not better… Modern bikes are good at some things and not so good at others. Buy what you can afford and remember that every bike that gets called terrible now, was once considered to be the greatest around. The next time a reviewer says something bad about an older model of bike, go back and read the original review. [Reply] * * * 20 9 Pocair (3 days ago) This! [Reply] * * * 39 0 RadBartTaylor (3 days ago) Can't disagree with that! I think part of what makes people think bikes are "better" is trails are changing/getting harder and the type of riding people do is getting more extreme, I do think 'modern' bike work better on the super extreme stuff say in Whistler / BC but as it's becoming more common to ride that, bikes have evolved to make it easier. Here in Bend, OR bike geo from 2010 (if I am honest) is probably the best setup. With that said, I rode N Shore BC in 2001 on a SC Bullit w/Monster T, short wheelbase, steep HTA, that thing rallied all those tight skinnies, drops and gnarly tight trails....I bet better than most modern bikes. But as bikes evolve so do the trails (or vice versa), the tight, rocky, "trailsy" type trails that I grew up riding in the 90's are being replaced by big, flowy, jumpier trails that new bikes may work a bit better on. [Reply] * * * 8 5 SierraButtesTrailStewardship (3 days ago) This! [Reply] * * * 7 0 nozes (3 days ago) @Saidrick Thank you for putting my exact thoughts in writing. [Reply] * * * 10 0 XC-Only (3 days ago) @RadBartTaylor: I've been visiting Bend just about every other year since 2004, and last year, I brought my gravel bike with 650b tires that are about 2.1" wide--was able to ride everything save for the jump line at the Phil's trailhead. I tend to think that any more trail development to challenge more than an aggressive hardtail would ruin what feels like endless single-track that is Bend. [Reply] * * * 47 5 islandforlife FL (3 days ago) I think what your comment is missing is that modern geo makes my bike a much, much better all-rounder. With the updated geo, steep seat tube angles make climbing so much better, and everything else makes descending so much better. I've been riding since the early 90's and while I ride a lot more faster, steeper terrain these days, I still ride a fair amount of low angle, flat-ish rolling terrain.... but find modern geo works just fine. If older geo works for modern riding (with a few caveats) why can't modern geo work for older riding (with a few caveats). Admittedly, because of where I live, I seek out modern geo because I ride a lot of "winch and plunge" terrain. But there are still a ton of bikes that have more conservative geo that can be chosen if this isn't your usual terrain. I'd say we now have more a lot more choice and are able to buy bikes that match our riding style and terrain, where previously we were stuck and had geo that was not optimized for steep fast terrain. I think riding style and terrain, trail building and parks evolved more quickly than bike design did. We just now have options we didn't have previously. As for weight, I for one am happy bike designers finally decided to just say "f*ck it" and actually build bikes that can take a beating year after year after year. They may be heavier, but at least they don't fold in half like every second bike did. At the same time, the 160/160 Brodie Hoodlum I bought in 2007 weighed something like 42 pounds vs my current enduro bike that is 36. [Reply] * * * 8 0 daweil (3 days ago) Very true. New school geo is great for when you take your trail bike to bike parks and ride gravity focused all the time. And from my point of view that's like 80% of modern Mountainbikers, including me. On the other hand I understand the guys who just want to keep touring and doing crazy tech stuff and are now bewildered that an all mountain mtb now has to weigh 17kg and why it's so shitty on the Asphalt transfer [Reply] * * * 16 1 RadBartTaylor (3 days ago) @XC-Only: Spot on, as bikes have evolved, and I've "upgraded" I find myself enjoying the trails less and less here. I feel like the riding in Bend WAS exactly that, endless ST epics up into the mountains, big days riding from town and afterwards zip to a pub from the trail for some beers. Hard days, lots of climbing, XCish setup....it's evolved into jump lines and shuttles and Rivians to a certain extent....I think peoples tastes have evolved beyond long hard rides and old school Bend attitude of doing 30 mile / 6000 foot days from your doorstep. [Reply] * * * 22 22 tralebuilder (3 days ago) Modern bikes are better in every way compared to bikes from a decade ago. Yes they require a more active riding style but their limits are way beyond those of the old school bikes. [Reply] * * * 35 5 zmums (3 days ago) I think the reality is more like most people are way overbiked for where they ride. outside of a few dedicated zones, a 130mm hardtail with a 67 deg HTA is almost the best bike you can have. Relatively modern geo short travel bikes are a ton of fun as do it all destroyers but most people get a 150/160 enduro rig and wonder why things feel sluggish. This all comes from someone in Bellingham who only rides big enduro bikes now lol. But I did ride mellow forest service/hiking trails for years and always preferred shorter travel and less aggressive bikes with relatively steep HTA's. TLDR: buy a bike for where you ride, not where you wish you rode. [Reply] * * * 6 1 NWintheUSA (3 days ago) Our rad stuff today will be tomorrow’s crap. Nothing ages worse than mnt bikes if ya always gotta be on the cutting edge. [Reply] * * * 14 2 RadBartTaylor (3 days ago) @tralebuilder: Modern bikes are better in a number of ways, but looking *just* at geo I think the OP is spot on...there are pros and cons / tradeoffs to it all. In the not so distant past many of us had a "bike", that was our XC race bike, big epic training bike, gravel bike, do it all shredder....for that kind of riding older geo generally works better. Nothing worse than riding a steep STA bike on 5 miles of flat gravel to get to the trail, I'd rather be underbiked than over. [Reply] * * * 9 0 RadBartTaylor (3 days ago) @zmums: I think Moab is an interesting case study here, some of that stuff is harder on modern bikes IMO, the tight switchbacks and more trialsy type moves is better on the older bikes and the newer bikes make a lot of the sketchy lines easier but also are a PITA on some of it. The trails and lines have evolved a bit from what I have seen. I think some of the East coast stuff is sim., never ridden there though. [Reply] * * * 7 0 jhtopilko (3 days ago) I wish the majority of the bike companies didn't try to copy each other. So many me toos, that we don't get substantially different bikes available at the same store [Reply] * * * 2 1 shorttravelmagazine (3 days ago) @Pocair: This! and another This! [Reply] * * * 13 0 Marquis (3 days ago) @zmums: This says it all: TLDR: buy a bike for where you ride, not where you wish you rode.. I used to be "aspirational" in my bike purchases and buy for places I thought I might ride someday. Then I rode 90% of the time on my local tight, twisty, switchback, quick ups-and-downs. Overbiked. The great thing is that now I get to buy 4-5 year old bikes that are exactly what's needed for where I ride. [Reply] * * * 6 0 yupstate (3 days ago) @Saidrick I agree in some cases with your comment, but not all modern "long wheelbases" or "steep seat angles" are equal. I do believe in every bike category, some bikes may have gone too far. A 140mm trail bike that has 64*HTA and 78* STA? Yea, I agree that's too far. But many new bikes do hit a pretty solid sweet spot for their given category. These 120-130mm bikes with 66* HTA and 76* STA without excessive Reach numbers? There's few situations where I'd want a trail bike from 2015 more than any of them. If you are someone who doesn't like used equipment I'd still say you are OK with today's bikes. Just need to know what to look for and remember that not every trail needs a 170mm Enduro bike. [Reply] * * * 3 0 HumpDiesel (3 days ago) @jhtopilko: I agree with this. I’d like a company that could offer an East Coast tighter single track bike. We don’t have the stuff that the West Coast has, we do have a lot of XC riding that you can go out and do an epic day. [Reply] * * * 16 0 jonemyers FL (3 days ago) I've been riding mountain bikes and racing XC since around 1987 and my first "real" mountain bike was a Raleigh Technium. I used to buy down a size so that I could have a short wheelbase for the old hiking trails in the PNW coast range. The trails are narrow with tight turns and almost no straight sections. I find that new geometry bikes with droppers are actually much better than the old bikes for even these trails. With a dropper you can turn very sharp and for the rest of the trail the long wheelbase is great. My first mountain bike had a wheelbase of 1050mm while my current bike is a bit over 1250mm. I can ride faster and more comfortably on the same trails AND I can actually ride steep stuff that I would not have dreamed of riding 10 years ago. I had some lighter bikes "back in the day" but the durability and reliability was much worse. Wheels continuously out of true and falling apart, bottom brackets failing, bearings going bad all the time, brakes that didn't work very well. The bikes I ride today are better than the bikes I had even 5 yeras ago. Even an entry level bike today would be a dream compared to something 10+ years ago. From my point of view we are living in an amazing time for mountain bikes. [Reply] * * * 5 0 pink505 (3 days ago) I miss the days where the bike was my excuse for my inability to ride crazy sh*t. Now I am the limit. I hate you modern bikes for now being better than me at trail riding! [Reply] * * * 11 0 miguelcurto FL (3 days ago) AFAIK old school hardtails become classics, old full sus become outdated. [Reply] * * * 2 0 pink505 (3 days ago) @jonemyers: I am with you on the 10 yrs...not so much the 5 yrs. I find the trickle down of top end tech has more or less stopped. Used to be todays XT was 5 year from now SLX. I prefer my 11speed XT and gx stuff to todays 12s. I have seen no significant improvement in forks or shocks, running essentially the same hubs and rims and see no performance. Tires...same. 2019 pink505 was pretty happy and my last few bikes haven't changed the game like the transition to disk brakes, 29ers and good trail bike geometry. Maybe if I was riding park and Enduro stuff I would have a different view. [Reply] * * * 2 0 zmums (3 days ago) @Marquis: Dude me too. I rode the tightest hiking trails on a 150/160 enduro bike for like 3 years before I got a honzo and discovered what i'd been missing all that time. I moved back to bellingham recently and now I have a 150/170 bike, a 170/190 bike, a DH Bike and a 170 forked chromag and i'm not sad about it because that's what I get to ride now and I can have more than one bike. I don't have more fun than when all I had was a crappy steel hardtail tho... there's some kinda lesson in there somewhere. [Reply] * * * 2 2 stiingya (3 days ago) Your missing one of the hallmarks of modern geometry and that is that most people can EASILY fit and ride more than one frame size. And often several frame sizes in one model. The majority of your issues are easily fixed by sizing down and picking and choosing what works best for you. You can also EASILY look for brands who are NOT on the cutting edge of modern geometry, there are still many out there. Modern suspension components can EASILY be modified and adjusted for travel. A little spacer shim here an air shaft swap there and maybe a reverse angle headset or some offset bushings and presto you've got geometry from years ago... TADA! OK, maybe not exactly, but you can for sure tweak a modern bike to have more classic geo traits. Pretty much from the dawn of mountain bikes people have been trying to modify them to go faster, farther, bigger, and not break doing that stuff!! So you can hardly blame manufacturers for selling what people want to buy. "IF" nobody was buying modern geometry, "IF" dealers couldn't get rid of their larger framed bikes because everyone purchased smaller sizes than recommended than the market would adjust. And we have seen some brands pull back a little. Lately we've seen several brands try to redistribute their sizing to better fit more people. (and that hasn't always worked out for me, several new bikes/frames I've looked at lately I'm stuck in the middle of the geochart when the last time I looked at that brand I was right on their sizing. It happens!) ALSO, there are literally THOUSANDS of good used bikes out there with old geometry that could use a good home... (I've got one in my garage I'll sell ya! ) [Reply] * * * 2 0 imbiker (3 days ago) @jhtopilko: Seems there are very few leaders in the industry these days, a lot of followers though. How many bikes today look like a Jeffsy ? [Reply] * * * 1 0 archibaldbarisol (3 days ago) This!!! [Reply] * * * 11 0 2wls4ever (3 days ago) This is why modern xc and downcountry bikes are the right choice [Reply] * * * 1 0 Maxcycles (2 days ago) You are absolutely correct. Some ultra modern bikes really suck to ride anywhere that isn’t super steep up and down with nothing in between. Definitely some middle ground to be had, thankfully some brands get it. [Reply] * * * 2 0 eldenring (2 days ago) True lets remember how trek slash 8 gen 6 was pinkbike's bike of the year with insane amount of chain drops. [Reply] * * * 7 0 seb-stott (2 days ago) I feel like most of what you're saying agrees with the article. [Reply] * * * 5 0 daweil (2 days ago) @jhtopilko: thing is, when a company does step out of the norm and makes a bike with "older" geo it instantly gets sh+t on with comments like "2015 called and wants it's geo back" and bad reviews where the new-school fast riding is main focus [Reply] * * * 4 0 JVance (2 days ago) @stiingya: Except for seat-tube angle. Thank goodness for the used-bike market...for now. But at some point, trying to find an XC/Trail-ish bike with a 74-75 degree seat-tube will become difficult. [Reply] * * * 1 0 foggnm (2 days ago) @HumpDiesel: Revel [Reply] * * * 4 0 GTscoob (2 days ago) Absolutely. You can tell the brands that do more market surveys in varying regions because they have more extreme big travel bikes and more conservative short travel bikes. 120mm bikes don't need 78 degree seat angles since they're more often used on flatter XC trails, and as you said, that will decrease comfort, utilize the wrong leg muscles and increase weight on the palms. Yet brands like Pivot and Revel get attacked for making short travel bikes that are versatile for the majority of riders that ride XC trails on slightly longer-legged bikes. PB readers should also realize that they're the extreme enthusiasts of the market, not the majority of buyers. [Reply] * * * 1 5 ARobershotte (2 days ago) (Below Threshold) show comment man techno grouches suck the fun out of this sport. [Reply] * * * 2 0 archibaldbarisol (2 days ago) @GTscoob: This! Or, how about those of us that only have one bike and require it to be "good" or "good enough" across varied terrain. [Reply] * * * 2 0 jona-mcc (2 days ago) @RadBartTaylor: did a 30 mile day thru Phil's and Tumalo Ridge when I went to Bend for a weekend in June. It was a tough day, and some of the trails definitely blurred together, but it was a blast as well. I was riding as hard as I could at the end to try and make it home for lunch. oh and it was on a 2019 xc hardtail with a 69* HTA and 100mm [Reply] * * * 1 0 RadBartTaylor (2 days ago) @jona-mcc: rad - sounds like a nice ride! [Reply] * * * 97 9 shredwhiteandblue (3 days ago) 2019 was peak geometry for 80% of riders. fight me [Reply] * * * 12 3 oxide (3 days ago) I totally agree. I need a LG length top tube length, but what is now a MED reach. [Reply] * * * 27 0 PHX77 (3 days ago) I’m a lover not a fighter, but I do love current bike geometry. It works for me. People are different. [Reply] * * * 12 6 shredwhiteandblue (3 days ago) @PHX77: congrats, you are the 20%! [Reply] * * * 22 2 notthatfast (3 days ago) I sort of agree. I think modern trail bike geo is spot on right now. Modern enduro bikes on the other hand are big, heavy, slow handling sleds in all but the most skilled hands. That said, 80% of riders should probably be on trail rather than enduro bikes, but people tend to over-bike themselves. Fight me. [Reply] * * * 3 1 m3hl FL (3 days ago) Parts too - I run shimano drivetrain (released in 2019), hayes brakes(2018 ), canyon frame (designed 2020 released in 2021), maxxis tires (2018 and earlier), etc etc etc. All still modern and relevant. [Reply] * * * 4 1 jesse-effing-edwards (3 days ago) @notthatfast: All our bikes are overkill compared to what people had 20 years ago. No one wants to fight themselves on a little beater bike that has them riding slow and going smaller. I love my overbuilt bike. [Reply] * * * 9 12 thustlewhumber FL (3 days ago) @notthatfast: Enduro bikes of the past are now Trail bikes which are now Downcountry which are now XC. Also, as a mountain bike coach for the last 10 years, I think most riders are UNDER biked for the terrain that is out there today. A little 100mm travel bike wont ever let you challenge yourself like a 150mm bike will. Can you do it? Yes... but, I would rather have it and not need it, than to need it and crash because I didnt have it. [Reply] * * * 6 0 notthatfast (3 days ago) @thustlewhumber: Totally, modern trail bikes are better than enduro bikes from 10 years ago. I think people's buying habits in Texas VS Vancouver are probably quite different. Most people I see on the trails here are over-biked. [Reply] * * * 4 0 XC-Only (3 days ago) @thustlewhumber: being a mountain bike coach skews the general population from which you may have drawn your conclusion. I'd be "under-biked" also if I was to go meet up with our local coach and hit terrain where I would *need* coaching. The majority of trails that people access are still natural, multi-use trails. There are several locales where man-made features specifically made for bikes exist, but for the majority of places, more bike just allows you to ride faster. [Reply] * * * 2 0 thewanderingtramp (3 days ago) 2019 i could still get an erection.....it was the best year [Reply] * * * 4 0 Kruton (3 days ago) @notthatfast: Where I live in Colorado, I honestly feel like 80% of people have something like a switchblade or hightower, which is perfect for here. I get very confused when people on the internet get into the whole "most people are overbiked". I don't see that here at all. Some people have bigger, some have smaller, but 80% of people on the trails here have a 130-150mm full squish with a 64-65ish HTA [Reply] * * * 1 0 shaun-ridefast-michael (3 days ago) I have a 2019 patrol and love it! [Reply] * * * 4 0 STARBURSTTUNA (3 days ago) @notthatfast: ... and many trail bike riders would probably be better served on downcountry/light trail bikes. [Reply] * * * 6 0 Blownoutrides (2 days ago) You’re just pissed because you were an L back in 2019 but now you’re an M in 2024. [Reply] * * * 3 0 boozed (2 days ago) @shredwhiteandblue: Well 2019 was when trail bikes finally hit 65° HTAs and... they still have 65° HTA so I guess you're right. However in the years since then they've also fixed the STAs. [Reply] * * * 1 1 GTscoob (2 days ago) @Blownoutrides: 6'1" really is the new 5'9". [Reply] * * * 47 7 fentoncrackshell (3 days ago) If you need to run a stem over 50mm to feel comfortable climbing and achieving a neutral stance, you're on outdated geo. If you need to run a stem under 35mm, you're on some Paul Aston-approved science project that turns about as well as a container ship. [Reply] * * * 8 4 Spencermon (3 days ago) that walks a very fine line of assuming we all fit neatly into boxes and can adapt to being between sizes. [Reply] * * * 7 1 souknaysh (3 days ago) @Spencermon: or just buy a bike that fits you well ? [Reply] * * * 2 2 fentoncrackshell (3 days ago) @Spencermon: There's a lot of variables that affect weight distribution (front & rear center, stack, etc.), but if your stem is much longer than your fork offset, you might as well be on a gravel bike. [Reply] * * * 4 0 Struggleteam (3 days ago) @souknaysh: or like me you are always right smack in between sizes. i either run a large with 50mm stem or an xl with a 32mm stem. [Reply] * * * 8 0 souknaysh (3 days ago) @Struggleteam: I'm also in the middle of a L and XL at 6,2". I run a 43mm or 45mm stem on all my bikes. To me stem length is not a fitting tool, more of a handling characteristic. Sweep on your bar also helps a bit for a more forward position or more laid back. Rider area distance measurement can often help to see quickly if the bikes fits well (reach, stack, Effective TT etc etc). Reach is not the single magic number [Reply] * * * 1 0 JSTootell (3 days ago) My GF riding an XS with a 32mm stem... [Reply] * * * 2 0 chrod (3 days ago) @souknaysh: 100% agree I've noticed a much stronger effect on handling than on fit in changing stem length. And at 6'1", also in between most L's and XL's I've had to be very choosy with bike sizing to get the fit right and also run the stem i want for handling. [Reply] * * * 1 0 knightmarerider FL (3 days ago) Short stem reduce the front end tendency to tuck or jack knife when loading in turns, for that I would always choose around 20mm stems. [Reply] * * * 1 0 FaahkEet (3 days ago) I'm running a short - 32mm - stem because I prefer the more direct control. I rode with the original 50mm stem and another 40mm stem but stuck to the 32mm stem. If I were to have sized down, the 30mm difference in wheelbase wouldn't result in a significantly more nimble bike comparatively. [Reply] * * * 1 0 catamplifier (2 days ago) @souknaysh: well, I'm 180cm tall. I fall into almost every brand's between sizes category. What do I pick? 455 reach and ride in a goblin stance or 485 reach and ride in a shrimp stance? I mean... 470 reach fits perfectly, but go find a manufacturer with that reach. Also, it should have other features and geo numbers I like. That's why I'm getting a 21-23 Altitude with about 475 reach in mullet configuration and NOT so slack head angle I like so much for turning. [Reply] * * * 1 0 Woody25 (2 days ago) @catamplifier: Just FYI, the latest Specialized Stumpjumper in a S4 size has a 470 reach with a 65 degree HA in the steepest setting www.specialized.com/gb/en/app/stumpjumper-15-geometry?&ht=0&hp=0&ws=0&sz=3. Also, the Geometry Geeks site will let you search on Reach and HA if you pay them for a month's subscription geometrygeeks.bike/advanced-search [Reply] * * * 2 0 catamplifier (2 days ago) @Woody25: tx, I'm not a fan of stumpys unfortunately. And 13% progression seems like a bottomout city for me, so that's a hard pass [Reply] * * * 1 0 Woody25 (2 days ago) @catamplifier: No worries. The Trek ML size is around a 470 reach too BTW. That's all I've got! [Reply] * * * 1 0 chrod (2 days ago) @catamplifier: If you're open to YT bikes: Large Jeffsy is 475mm reach with 435mm stays and 634 stack, so you could add a 5-10mm of spacers and get close to 470 reach pretty easily at a modern stack height. (YT cuts their steerers with only 5-10mm of room). Plus they just dropped that sick Uncaged 14 build. Bought a Capra early this season and love it as an all-rounder. Very progressive, well-built, and YT has been good with warranty (headset bearing came defective and they mailed a new one asap) [Reply] * * * 1 0 Spencermon (2 days ago) @souknaysh @fentoncrackshell nah man, I'm just done with people who don't know jack about me trying to tell me how I should put my own bike together. stem length, spacers, bar sweep, and bar height all have so many variables and different ways to get to a certain fit point. Maybe don't make sweeping recommendations about people you don't know. [Reply] * * * 1 0 jimsmart (2 days ago) But modern geometry bikes have much shorter TT's in the same size. If I want a medium YT Izzo for example, I'd get a TT shorter than 600. I was riding medium frame with a 610 mm TT and a 90mm stem for the entire 2010's. I'm going to feel pretty scrunched on a 600 mm TT and 50mm stem. [Reply] * * * 1 1 catamplifier (1 days ago) @chrod: ye, I dig the new Jeffsy, but I don't like having clevises I've ridden a Capra in L, but I just don't like very short CS on their mullet bikes. I mean, thanks for the suggestion, but I'm aware of the majority of bike options, and sometimes it's a tough decision. Also, I'm a mullet guy, as I have locally lots of tight stuff that was built for 26 wheels [Reply] * * * 35 0 carlitouk (3 days ago) Like the ride of it or not, the polished finish on that Trek is hubba hubba. [Reply] * * * 1 0 ReformedRoadie (3 days ago) That downtube makes the whole knock block thing make sense. [Reply] * * * 1 0 dsciulli19 (2 days ago) I remember that bike coming out in 2015... man did I covet it. [Reply] * * * 20 0 powderturns (3 days ago) Can I retrofit headset cable routing? [Reply] * * * 11 0 sjma (3 days ago) drillium never gets old [Reply] * * * 20 2 vic690 (3 days ago) Sometimes i go back watching what Sam Hill was able to do on a short, 26 wheeled, steep Sunday and 32 mm boxxers and i’m like… ummhhhh, marketing…. [Reply] * * * 13 1 jesse-effing-edwards (3 days ago) If we all rode as well as Sam Hill there would have been way less progress as everyone would have been able to shred on whatever they had. [Reply] * * * 5 0 EnsBen (3 days ago) At this moment installing a -2 degree headset and a 190mm 27.5 inch zeb on mine, old zocchi dual crown 888 is totaled so figured I'd "modernize" it into a mini mullet and see how she goes. 26" ain't dead but it's gonna be frankensteined [Reply] * * * 6 0 BiNARYBiKE FL (3 days ago) Until you imagine what he would’ve done back then if given a bike from 20 years in the future. The rider matters more than the bike for sure, but the bike still matters. I doubt Loic would be at the same level today if he were limited to an iron horse Sunday. [Reply] * * * 1 0 vic690 (2 days ago) @BiNARYBiKE: of course Loic with outdated tech would not have the same results.. but it’s another level, another world, another sport in my mind.. I meant that for the average rider, some ‘outdated’ stuff is more than enough [Reply] * * * 1 0 Ttimer (2 days ago) @BiNARYBiKE: The better the rider, the less important the bike. Just look at this year’s Mt. Seven Psychosis. They were racing modern and retro DH bikes, and you wouldn’t know who was on what just looking at the times. [Reply] * * * 1 0 GTscoob (2 days ago) I mean same with what Senna and Schumacher were winning on. Why bother making faster F1 cars? [Reply] * * * 14 0 yoimaninja (3 days ago) "The truth is that bike geometry is still evolving. There never will come a time when bike designers say, "Yep, that's it - these are the numbers bikes should have from now on. Let's all go home."" Honestly I kind of disagree with this and feel like we're there, or really close, now. Changing degrees by halves and tenths every year isn't evolving. [Reply] * * * 2 0 STARBURSTTUNA (3 days ago) Kind of reminds me of the archery industry where the tiniest of improvements to efficiency (sometimes artificial) year over year and massive marketing campaigns to equipment that doesn't really change a lot year after year (except the prices). [Reply] * * * 13 0 bodingus (3 days ago) The bike engineers are pigeon holed. If they don’t keep making bikes longer and slacker then bike reviewers will say the bike is bad. Also why should a biker have to spend time getting better at descending when they can just buy it? Get the latest down country bike with DH tires then shred the gnar of their 300 feet of elevation local loop. [Reply] * * * 9 0 SDtumbleweed (3 days ago) If you miss old geo: buy a modern XC bike. They are insane, can handle terrain that gave me fits on my 26" 1998 Hardrock. Buying a used XC is also not difficult bc the racers turn over ~2 years, typically at a 50% discount. On another note - I found a 15 year old Turner, top-of-the-line build for a buddy as a starter bike. He finally upgraded to a YT Jeffsy, 27.5" this year and he didn't like it as much. His main complaint included much of the advice in this thread - the new bike is much heavier, harder to handle etc. Companies will continue to cater to the preferences of different trail types and riders. I struggle to clear tight-hiker-type trails on my 2020 Instinct, leaving me envious of the 2018 geo on my buddy's Enduro leaving me in the dust. Horses for courses [Reply] * * * 1 0 alexdi (2 days ago) There’s nothing old about modern XC geo. Epic Evo led to Epic 8, both long and with a 66Dish HA. Even at 23 pounds, the former feels stable and inert. You really need to push the pace to have any fun. [Reply] * * * 1 0 Endurahbrah (2 days ago) I bought a Jeffsy 27.5 last November. It took me a while to get used to it, coming from a 2017 Banshee Phantom. A big improvement for me was to use the flip chip on the Jeffsy in the High/Steep setting. Makes the bike come alive on the trails, and I don't miss the Low/Slack setting going down. [Reply] * * * 11 0 mrmars (3 days ago) LOL the Remedy 29er the only bike that took me two rides to figure out it wasn't for me. [Reply] * * * 12 2 tacklingdummy (3 days ago) Not a fan of the super long reach. As a rider with short arms, long reach puts my mass too far forward which makes me prone to becoming a dead sailor candidate. [Reply] * * * 2 0 knightmarerider FL (3 days ago) Go tall like a MX bike, as long as you're not pushed behind the BB you're good. [Reply] * * * 2 2 tacklingdummy (2 days ago) @knightmarerider: Yeah, I know what works for me and know what numbers I want. Been riding mtb for decades. [Reply] * * * 1 1 GTscoob (2 days ago) Size down? Droppers are long enough to put the saddle where you need it. Don't let pride get in the way of a proper fitting bike. Maybe you used to ride a Medium and now ride a Small, nobody cares. [Reply] * * * 1 1 tacklingdummy (2 days ago) @GTscoob: Dropper height and seat position have absolutely nothing to do with the reach numbers. Dropper height and seat position only have an effect on effective top tube position (pedaling position). [Reply] * * * 2 1 GTscoob (2 days ago) @tacklingdummy: right, size down to get the reach you want, run a longer dropper to get the right leg extension. Don't complain about bikes being too big when smaller options are available and can be made to work with your short arms. [Reply] * * * 2 0 tacklingdummy (2 days ago) @GTscoob: It is obvious going to a smaller size will get you shorter reach numbers. Lol. I'm not complaining. I just stating that I'm not a fan of the super long reach bikes. There are plenty of options of bikes that have reach and effective TT numbers I like and fit me fine. Since sizing down, the effective TT (riding position) goes down as well. That effective TT number may not be a good fit for me when pedaling for hours. I already ride a small. There are no smaller options for 99% of companies which is fine because I'm already am sizing down. I am generally always between a small and medium, but generally always get a small. Sorry, your opinions are just pointing out the obvious. Lol. [Reply] * * * 8 0 toddersby (3 days ago) I still miss my 2016 bike, wish I'd never sold it! Slack enough to be good at DH but not too long to feel like it just wants to straight line and plough everything. My current bike is definitely more capable and stable, but way less fun for me. I may go back to smaller wheels and a size small frame to try and get some of the magic back. [Reply] * * * 4 0 lepigpen FL (3 days ago) This exactly. Sold a 2016 Process for a brand new modern one of the same model. Regret it to this day. It has none of the tactical feel of the older bike. It's an overly long sled that hates tight trails and tight transitions, and begs for wide open flowy bike park tracks. And I don't go out enough to really justify that design of bike. It's the 153 model, and again I loved the 2016 version. I think that 2020 one looks ok as well. But this new one seemed to go a touch too far and it feels like a wish dot com downhill bike with none of the awesome travel of a DH and none of the playful poppiness of an older trail bike... [Reply] * * * 8 0 loam33 (3 days ago) I ride my old 2013 Norco Sight all the time. It is quick and responsive and maneuverable and a blast to ride. It is a little bike and that is what is fun about it, especially on tight quirky trails. It is the short board vs the long board analogy, and for some reason people think you should only be riding big boards now and have strangely forgotten that the short boards kick ass! [Reply] * * * 8 0 audios89 (3 days ago) This is why super slacked out XC bikes make no sense to me. If you have a 'quiver' of bikes to ride the spectrum you want a Short, Mid and long travel bikes where the wheelbase and headangles act accordingly. I had to hold off buying a new 'XC' bike because it was longer and slacker than my 2019 trail bike! [Reply] * * * 2 0 totaltoads (3 days ago) Yes, i got a 2022 Oiz because they slacked everything out after that and it was the last holdout of normal XC geo. Not everything has to shred the downs. It also has the same geo as my 2012 XC hardtail, which is amazing for XC riding. Not every bike has to be an enduro bike, but it seems like that is what everyone is pushing towards. [Reply] * * * 10 0 Konashredder94 (3 days ago) 2014 down hill bikes = modern geometry for small riders double fun fact: mini mullet them for extra fun and spice [Reply] * * * 11 1 vonroder77 (3 days ago) The industry does need more playful bike options. It feels so catered to racing now. Who has the longest, slackest with massive wheelbase. So many riders now sizing down, having to modify the hell outta big 29er and mullets for smaller wheels to work. I see a lot more older frames being purchased and revamped at jump trails, whistler etc. [Reply] * * * 4 1 bat-fastard (3 days ago) Waiting on my new zerode g3, as short me its a small, going with -10mm reach (425) headset running 26 2.6 rear and 27.5 2.6 front. With 29" dorados will effectively lower whole frame 7mm at rear axle bb and headtube so no angle changes. My worst worry is stack will be high for me but have drop stem an 15mm bars so fingers crossed. Not sold on 29er front for bike park laps, racing yes but smaller wheels are more fun just banging out laps. [Reply] * * * 5 0 Konashredder94 (3 days ago) @vonroder77: thats why i love my old kona, single pivot, short as hell! and 8" travel bike that plays like a bmx [Reply] * * * 8 1 Someoldfart (3 days ago) "Steeper (effective) Seat Angle: The effective seat tube angle (the slope of a line connecting the bottom bracket to the top of the seat post) is much steeper in modern bikes. Typical angles have gone from 73-75 degrees ten years ago to 76-80 degrees today. This positions the rider more forward, improving pedalling efficiency for climbing, while making it easier to keep enough weight on the front tire to steer and balance. Such seat angles were not practical when reach figures were shorter, because they would place the rider's hips too close to the handlebar." OK there are some false statements in here. How does sitting more forward increase efficiency? Since when do riders want to weight the front end to keep from looping out? Riders need to keep their centre of mass in front of the rear contact patch. We loop out over the back wheel. Front end has nothing to do with it. It’s cheaper to keep all rear triangles the same size and steepen the seat tube angle to maintain room for suspension travel especially with a long dropper so the seat doesn’t rub on deep compression. Manufacturers are starting figure this out with some designing longer rear ends for larger bikes. Another thing steep seat tube angles do is encourage an upright position. That’s not efficient if you look at most xc racers. There’s nothing wrong with a bolt upright position if that’s what you prefer, just don’t give me it’s more efficient bullcrap. Many manufacturing have shortened the top tubes in any given size to accommodate the steep seat tubes. My knees with pads on sometimes hit my grips on technical uphill switchbacks. That’s with me buying a larger bike than recommended. I live and ride in Whistler and Squamish. The climb trails tend or have numerous tight switchbacks. I have adapted to the slack front end of Mt Fuel ex gen 6 but I have improved it this year by steepening the head angle with the optional headset cups and effectively slacked the seat tube angle with a Fairbike off set seat post head. Much better. I think for many riders it doesn’t really matter that much and people just accept the "it’s more better" marketing. But I’m old. Been riding mountain bikes for over 40 years. I managed to survive the tuck and roll geometry on the 90s. [Reply] * * * 3 0 iadorjan23 (2 days ago) Honestly, I don't even find an upright position that comfortable (let alone efficient on rolling/flatter terrain). It puts too much pressure on my lower back (spine is compressed) and neck too. But I'm more of an epic XC type of rider who needs to feel a bit more stretched out. [Reply] * * * 1 0 Uuno (2 days ago) All true but I think you took the comments too literally. Not looping out with a slack STA means lot of work in steep uphills, like lowering the torso towards the bar. Not having to do that saves a lot of energy. The example with XC riders getting along with slack STA is due to the low cockpit, bringing the torso lower and forward. [Reply] * * * 3 0 DoubleCrownAddict (2 days ago) @Uuno: yes because the upper body acts as an anchor, which is why slack seatposts are better for riding on flat ground. youtu.be/yaUKZkucHP8?si=9uasW_uDv6lBZ2ew Imagine being 6' 4", riding flat pedals like a Jerry, and thinking your preferred seat angle is perfect for every mountain biker. Sometimes Pinkbike is just complete amateur hour. [Reply] * * * 1 0 iadorjan23 (2 days ago) @Uuno: Yes, but that's exactly my point. 90% of my rides are not really steep uphills (I'd define steep as sth. above 15%). My legs are shortish as well, so even with a more traditional slacker STA, I feel ok pedaling during climbs in a seated position. But of course a lot also depends on where do position the saddle (my saddle has really long rails), as that could easily compensate for a few degrees slacker or steeper [Reply] * * * 2 0 Someoldfart (2 days ago) @Uuno: Not really. Last night I led a group ride here in Whistler up to Roam in the Loam. The road to access that trail has several nasty pitches of 25 - 30%. Many other climbs in Whistler are like that too. I don’t scootch forward unless it’s steeper than that but I’m short so looping out doesn’t really happen. Taller riders need longer rear centres and not a more forward seat position. Short chain stays for all require seat tube angles to clear the rear tire from the deeply dropped post. One rear triangle for all sizes is cheaper as you can more easily mass produce it in carbon or metal. That keeps a bike price down so the manufacturer can retain market share. Not that bikes are cheap anymore. The conspiracy theorist in me suggests that marketers made up the steeper is better statement. I’ve never seen any real science to demonstrate why steeper is more efficient other than it will put one’s centre of mass in a better place vis a vis not looping out. [Reply] * * * 9 0 jesse-effing-edwards (3 days ago) I have never wished I could sell my modern bike and go back to what I was riding 5 years ago, ever. [Reply] * * * 4 0 HumpDiesel (3 days ago) I have! I’ve wished I hadn’t sold my 2018 Pivot Switchblade. [Reply] * * * 1 0 ESQDavidK (22 hours ago) Depends on what you were riding 5 years ago though. [Reply] * * * 9 0 PRETENDERS (3 days ago) fuck everybody 2012 specialized demo is the best bike ever [Reply] * * * 2 0 mokydot (1 days ago) im with ya [Reply] * * * 5 0 TurboDonuts (3 days ago) #27.5aintdead Keep: Options for full 27.5 bikes for XS-XXL frames (fun > speed), planted geo for trail bikes (64-65* HTA). Leave: Cable tourism, idler pulleys on trail bikes, everything being carbon (can't recycle), electronics, terrible marketing names for trim levels of bikes and components #SuperUltimateEliteFactory++ [Reply] * * * 6 0 rustyglaze5 (3 days ago) That ''abonimable'' cable routing is still the best to date and forever will be. Swaping drivetrain parts and brakes is a breeze and not the headache of routing cable for hours that rattle inside a frame. [Reply] * * * 3 0 commental (2 days ago) It made me chuckle when I read that. It read like bad cable routing was a thing of the past. [Reply] * * * 4 0 chrsei (3 days ago) I have 2023 Stumpjumper Evo, super easy to ride up and down, but after a bit yawn.. boring! But then I still have a 27.5 2018 SC 5010, so much more exiting and fun since much less capable- this one is my favorite! And since the Stumpy is so boring I have a 2010 Fuji with long fork and 26 rear tire that's just scary but super jumpy. Don't give your old bikes away! After the initial "I can do everything" with a modern one they will become very valuable. [Reply] * * * 3 0 TwoNGlenn (2 days ago) My 2018 5010 is still a blast to ride and relevant. It's the red one. [Reply] * * * 4 0 brooce FL (3 days ago) Sometimes I still ride my old-ish 26" bike. It's quite slower on most of the trails, way more sketchy in the mountains, bit less comfortable on longer rides... but so much more fun at the locals not requiring all those superpowers! [Reply] * * * 4 0 tipsword (3 days ago) Sigh... What happened to just riding bikes? The constant "it ain't good enough" baloney combined with the "maths" involved with every review is is pretty silly, when in the end it's as simple as having fun with what you brung & not worrying so much about the other guy and their shit. Both my bikes are old and god forbid still 26" wheels (I know ... I'm gonna get struck by lightning any second) ~ What they have is history, the ability to still make me smile and it hasn't cost me multiple thousands of $$$ every year or so to keep up with someone else's idea of good ~ F... that *ding-ding* ride bikes (if you know you know). [Reply] * * * 3 0 Snowytrail (3 days ago) No lightning but hopefully you are regularly checking for stress cracks. [Reply] * * * 1 0 tipsword (2 days ago) @Snowytrail: At my age this is a daily check, sometimes more ... [Reply] * * * 3 0 totaltoads (2 days ago) because bicycle riding is a social/money pissing contest now, like everything else. riding bikes doesn't drive sales. triggering people's insecurities that they aren't as cool as other people, does. [Reply] * * * 5 2 lkubica (3 days ago) So it turns out the bike industry has shot themselves in the foot by making too good bikes, no one really needs a change now and those who want to, are waiting for even bigger discounts, still quite a lot of stock there. Personally I am a bit torn apart, on one hand I want those f*ckers to bleed since they were just greedy beyond understanding, on the other hand mostly the innocent people will be fired and all those CEOs and management will just move somewhere else. [Reply] * * * 5 0 carlitouk (3 days ago) My 2010 Pitch in medium had 450 reach...the change to a current bike has been less drastic/exciting. Also, it was a wicked spec for 1400 pounds. [Reply] * * * 1 0 Lwerewolf (3 days ago) Still have it as my do-it-all, offset bushings + 160mm 36 up front = very modern in terms of descending. The oiz is way too good for my local conditions though [Reply] * * * 1 0 commental (2 days ago) I was talking with a friend about my old Pitch yesterday. That bike was great for it's time. I did a Whistler trip with a group of friends and will always remember looking at our bikes hanging on a bike rack on the back of a truck and laughing about how my bike was about 200mm longer than anyone else's. [Reply] * * * 7 0 xcjoe (3 days ago) Anything non UDH [Reply] * * * 3 0 dthomp325 (2 days ago) I want custom derailleur hangers dammit! Sucks to have a bog standard UDH that any Joey can buy at a shop! What else did the engineers forget if they didn't even have time to design a custom fabricated hanger that's sold out 6 months out of the year? [Reply] * * * 1 0 Adamrideshisbike (2 days ago) Catch me up, why isn't UDH a good thing? Seems amazing to walk into any bike shop and be able to buy a hanger if you mangle one on a trip with your off-brand bike. [Reply] * * * 1 0 Struggleteam (2 days ago) @Adamrideshisbike: Its about damn time they did a universal hanger. I have 6 bikes in my family and six different spare hangers i need to keep around. UDH doesn't mean you have to run a fancy drivetrain with a battery. Wish they did UDH twenty years ago and then all frames would be compatible at this point. Unfortunately this will take time. [Reply] * * * 5 2 two2pedal (3 days ago) The worst trait of "modern geometry" is bottom brackets so low as to drive the industry to devise kiddie cranks for adults. A whole segment of mfgrs. trying to correct a problem they created. [Reply] * * * 3 0 JSTootell (3 days ago) Except short cranks are becoming popular in road too [Reply] * * * 2 0 GTscoob (2 days ago) Counterpoint, run less sag and less spacers to get that BB height back. The amount of new MTBers that want to run 35% or more sag for comfort then complain about pedal strikes is too damn high. [Reply] * * * 2 0 juicebanger FL (3 days ago) My fleet is a 2015 Process 134 (27.5") and 2013 Session (26") and I have zero issues keeping up to my modern-bike-owning crew. I have a sick time out there and don't feel held back. If money were no object, I would replace the Session with some kind of modern enduro/AM rig, but the 134 would stay in the fleet for trail/XC rides. That thing is fun af and I just love riding it. [Reply] * * * 4 0 Simann (3 days ago) Wheelbase. You can have a slack or steep HTA, Slack or steep STA. But overall, to me, wheelbase has the most significant and immediate effect on performance [Reply] * * * 2 0 jimicarl (3 days ago) Middle of 2012, I picked up new 5.Spot. Rode that bad boy for 5 years & sold it in favor of a Mach 5.5. Still maintain & ride the 5.5 - while at the same time trying half-heartedly to sell it. But for what reason? Honestly can't say. The dang thing still rocks my world. Do I need a new bike? Not really. But here's de dealio. Couple years ago, I picked up a '14 Burner. XT build. Ano orange. Beautiful. Significantly steeper, shorter, & taller than the 5.5. At least as confident & fast on the same trails, as on the 5.5. I need to get my butt back over the seat more than the 5.5. But it's more poppy and so..., more fun. I think - a much better trail bike. The crux is that that's all just me. The way I ride. The where I ride. Still..., according to the pundits -both bikes are graced with outdated geo. According to "the sales team", I need a new bike. REALLY? Based on what? A set of numbers? Well..., they can kiss my perky little POOPER!! [Reply] * * * 1 0 pink505 (2 days ago) Loved my 2011 Sultan, sad I sold that bike. [Reply] * * * 1 0 jimicarl (2 days ago) @pink505: HEAR HEAR!! Or is it "here here"? Meh. You get it. And so do I. Often feel the same about the ol' 5.Spot. But hey - if I need a blast from the past, my ratty old 2010 AlaCarte does it for me. On it's 3rd fork. Umpteenth saddle. 2nd crankset. 75th BB, yada. It's a keeper. It's a bit of a butt-beater. But for a lake trail (say.., Waldo Zone) or a river trail (say..., McKenzie River Trail), it works. It slows me down. Makes me remember lost skills. And allows me the time stop & look around. It's Zen. I love it. [Reply] * * * 3 1 renatofrdh (3 days ago) Minha frota principal é: GT Fury Team 2018 27,5 boxxer charger Large GT Sanction Pro 27,5 yari180mm Fox DHx RC2 coil GT Avalanche Sport 2020 Medium rock Shox xc30 120mm e canote Dropper Não vejo necessidade alguma de fazer alguma troca para o meu nível técnico, sei que não uso 100% da capacidade dos equipamentos. Na sub frota: Scott gambler dh10 2010 com rodas 27,5 graças ao sistema ids de fábrica, e marzocchi 888cr Scott High Octane 2007 aro 26 com boxxer Team 2008 e Fox DHx 4.0 Scott Nitrous 10 2007 aro 26 com Rock Shox totem e Fox dhx3.0 [Reply] * * * 2 0 scotttherider FL (3 days ago) Put my wife on my old 2016 large sized Banshee Darkside. If you check the reach and all the numbers they're oddly close to modern medium sized frame numbers... 20mm less travel for your typical dh frame now days. Compared to a size 3 demo the numbers are negligible biggest difference was the wheelbase is 2" shorter. [Reply] * * * 3 1 kencoxtrailspinners (3 days ago) Oh please... Every year, the bike marketing departments have to come up with some crazy reason why your old bike is now a useless pile of garbage so they can beat Wall Street's estimates and milk that sweet sweet constant growth that our silly system requires every large company to have. My bike is 10 years old and I'm leading the group ride being chased by much newer bikes and younger riders. Catch me if you can. [Reply] * * * 4 0 trailpimpuk FL (3 days ago) Still on a 2016 Bronson V2 and it still feels rad. Keep debating a change but it just calls me back! [Reply] * * * 4 0 andymac83 (3 days ago) Outdated geometry = when your seat tube measurement is longer than your reach measurement. [Reply] * * * 1 0 energetik (3 days ago) I'm on a modernized 2005 Cannondale Prophet. (27.5 conv, 1x11, 150mm fork etc) It's what I could afford 8 yrs ago and I love tinkering. The head angle is about 67° with the bigger fork but geo is definitely short. I'm on the right size but I do wish the reach was longer. It's 2005 so yeah. It does work well for the flatter more tech trails in PA, USA though. The geo numbers are way different than today but the smaller frame does give me more maneuverability for the rock soup and root salad we have here. So that's a tradeoff. That said. I'd replace it with a Canfield Tilt in a heart beat and hang the frame on the wall. I ride what I've got and that's better than nothing for sure. [Reply] * * * 1 0 deeeight (3 days ago) If you started mountain biking when the XC Norba geometry was 71/73 with a 23 inch top tube in an XL frame.... and stem extensions were longer than the average american penis... going back to riding such a bike isn't a problem even if your current trail bike is a 66/76 angle with a 25 inch top tube and a 50mm stem. If however you only started riding since 2010... you're probably going to be puzzled how folks managed to make do with such geometry. [Reply] * * * 2 1 ReformedRoadie (3 days ago) Speak for yourself... [Reply] * * * 1 0 VtVolk (3 days ago) I agree with you, but still enjoy not going OTB twice every ride in the name of progression! [Reply] * * * 2 0 zamanfu (3 days ago) I just spent the weekend on my old Bronson 2, which I hadn't ridden in forever. It was such a fun change of pace from my Transition Patrol. Way more nimble and poppy on my typical trails. [Reply] * * * 3 0 TEAM-ROBOT FL (3 days ago) "Is this 2015 Trek Remedy unrideable now?" With a front derailleur, single ply Bontrager tires, and a DRCV shock, definitely. [Reply] * * * 2 1 DaveRobinson81 (3 days ago) At the risk of being controversial, I think we are only beginning on this topic. Geometry 'evolution' occurred mainly by trial and error in the early days (early 2010s?), and only recently started to look into real design by frame size - I think that maybe the future will scale the 'key' parameters (which parameters they are is completely debatable - see my first sentence) proportionally for a ride feel that a manufacturer is after - however not sure if that'll happen due to marketing. Let's se... [Reply] * * * 2 0 Vegasbmx (3 days ago) Never had a problem with the geometry on any mountain bike. Had a problem with crappy quick release axles- even on 15 and 20 mm axles. Also Steering tubes cut way too short from the factory and crappy Presta valves. [Reply] * * * 1 0 dthomp325 (3 days ago) “Modern geometry” allows for great all-around bikes. Before steep seat angles and long reaches you had good climbers and good descenders, but they were different bikes. Now your average mid-travel trail or enduro bike can be a comfortable and efficient climber, while still being stable and predictable on the descents. [Reply] * * * 1 0 badbikekarma (2 days ago) Modern reach numbers are ridiculous-even with a short stem. I know exactly what numbers work for me, I have not grown since 2014. i prefer a more upright riding position for spine health, Tried the road bike geo and hated it. I need to size down and/or seek out frames that have conservative reaches but still slack angles. 5' 7.5" and current bike is 2018 banshee rune v2. 402mm reach, 43 mm stem. Same effective reach as a medium with similar stem back in the Elder Days late 2000's . Just picked up an Esker Elkat from the classifieds, which reviewers said had conservative reach. Sounds good. putting in a -1 deg headset and the geo will be spot on, [Reply] [Reply] * * * 1 0 jj130 (2 days ago) I still have my 2014 felt compulsion that runs of 26. perfect reach, perfect head angle, slackness of the seat angle etc. it rode great too in just about any trail but what sucked is the height of the seat tube. it is too long. that 350mm long droppers are your shortest option. this is one of the things that I liked about modern bikes is that the seattube is so short yet you run a long dropper makes riding significantly more fun regardless of the wheel size and head angle. [Reply] * * * 1 0 opignonlibre (2 days ago) My 2015 Banshee Prime trail bike still ride as good as it used to when it was new. Even better I would say as it has better brakes, and imho better tires. The fact that brands make bikes differently now doesn't make by bike ride worse than it used to. There is no reason I cannot enjoy it the same way I did it the years before. [Reply] * * * 1 0 abiotic (2 days ago) What I most like about modern bikes/geo is that I finally don't just have to default to the largest size and try to make it fit and can upsize and downsize according to my prefereces if I wish (188cm, 92cm inseam, long arms). My 2015 XL bike (Spartan) had 50mm shorter reach compared to my current 2022 XL bike (Sommet). The old bike also had taller seat tube etc It rode great though, but it felt rather "bmx-esque" for my liking in steep/fast stuff. Then again, I've had some of my best race results back in the day with 26" wheeled, comically small bike. The fact that I was in way better fit back then may also play some role here... [Reply] * * * 1 0 Waylonwaylonwaylon FL (2 days ago) I speak for bike mechanics everywhere when I say that this only applies to NEW old stock bikes from the era. Most of the customers who bring a 10+ year old bike into the shop for this purpose are looking for miracles. They're always clapped out in every way possible, and rehabbing them costs more than a new bike (plus your shop hates you) - please redact this article for the sanity of wrenches everywhere! [Reply] * * * 1 0 chompinchuck (2 days ago) If there is one slight dip or may one turn in the trail? You MUST...even on a 140mm fork and 130mm shock, have a dropper else you will surely be splayed...says all those who's ancestors rode 26 hardtails over the same turf at the same speed. [Reply] * * * 1 0 simonwirth (2 days ago) Outdated geometry ? I remember this spring a guy after a marathon race "dowcountry" orientated (outdated category would be Progressive XC Trail Race) amazed I was able to catch him up with 100 mm full sus and still make it in the first quarter of the final results. When I told my HT angle is 71° I though he would passe out. Anyway, this was just a funny fact and not something I am proud of. Modern geometry make clearly much more capable a bike. I rode the last Epic with its 120 mm both front and rear, and yes, I was clearly faster on rought down hill, technical climbs were easier as well. Would I make a better race ? I am not sure (I am more an XC rider). But I would clearly have more fun and spare energy on some segments. But modern Geo cost like hell ... I keep my 71° HT angle bike :-) [Reply] * * * 1 0 manco (2 days ago) Reality is that Nicolai Geometron & Pole Evolink were "the" catalyst for all other companies geometry changes. These two companies wrote the book on what geometry should be and everyone else simply copied and tinkered their own version of those companies, albeit much more slowly as to keep selling all their inventory siting in the marketing pipeline moving out the door. & now the bikes that are shown in the Modern Geometry article are Specialized and Canyon... Gotta drive that ad revenue [Reply] * * * 1 0 BobbywAiCX (2 days ago) I've been riding for 35 plus years and picked up a bike from every year I been riding and my 2012 Mojo with 27's is my Love since 2012. It has to have 20k miles on the frame my others only in the hundreds if even that. Ride what gives you a smile on your face. [Reply] * * * 1 0 nickmalysh (1 days ago) Well overall last 10 y, reach on L size bikes for me moved from 430 to 495, incrementally and it felt amazing, I’d probably will not go any longer for the next bike. I believe geo will not change much in future, however frame features as a package will evolve: Storage, routing, mounting points, etc [Reply] * * * 1 0 TOOTRIKK (1 days ago) Great article. Last on the list could have or should have been, seat post insertion depth, for us taller folks. 240mm dropper gonna stick out a mile on the Spec Enduro because of its interrupted and therefore short asf seat tube. [Reply] * * * 1 0 Loshmi24 (6 hours ago) In my opinion people should size down a category of bike when they are buying a new bike that is significantly more modern compared to the one they already have and they are riding the trails that haven't changed much. This doesn't apply to people who ride bikes competitively. What I mean by this? If you were riding enduro bike from E.G. 2018 and you are buying a new bike to ride the same trails, maybe you should consider trail bike? In 2019, I bought used RM Instinct BC edition, MY 2016. It was a great bike but didn't fit me well enough. I replaced it with the latest Norco Revolver FS set up as 120/100 mm. I would say that those two bikes are very close in capabilities on my local trails. If I opted for the new Instinct, I would be overbiked and I would be riding a bike that is heavier, less efficient and that has more drag. [Reply] * * * 4 0 howejohn (3 days ago) That dropper is hilarious. I think some gravel bikes have the same drop. [Reply] * * * 3 1 xciscool (3 days ago) Yep it’s silly how short that AXS reverb is on the enduro, totally dates the bike. [Reply] * * * 2 1 sprung-mass (3 days ago) @xciscool: John is probably talking about the Remedy. I have a 170 AXS Reverb on a S4 Enduro and run it 33mm from bottoming it out in the seat tube. Nothing about that is outdated. [Reply] * * * 3 0 konafarker (3 days ago) Time to pile onto Ellsworth for holding on to 1999 geometry. #69DegHAForLife [Reply] * * * 1 2 elpatolino (3 days ago) I have a 2003 Ellsworth Moment. Still great for me, but the original version is a supposedly All Mountain, but it isn't, it's a really good XC bike. The top tube is too high and will break balls if you go up something too steep and fail... What does not work well? 26inch tyres for one, it's true that 29 is better and the fact that the rear shock is apparently not replaceable by an LBS for less than the cost of the bike. I reckon that adding an ebike kit to it will be quite nice, it's a beast in terms of solidity. [Reply] * * * 3 1 cheritht FL (3 days ago) Barelli on a gravel bike sent the Dirt Merchant that I can barely survive on a bike with an "outdated" enduro geometry. If you have the skill, nothing is really outdated? [Reply] * * * 4 2 Vudu74 FL (3 days ago) Any XL/XXL under 510 mm reach, and 445 at least chainstay. Shorter people have 4-6 other sizes to play around with under that size depending on the manufacturer. [Reply] * * * 3 0 Bro-LanDog (3 days ago) Mtb from even a decade ago sucked. 2017 is when mtb design has converged to it's optimal state. [Reply] * * * 1 0 Offrhodes FL (3 days ago) I rode my 2011 Niner SIR 9 (singlespeed) this weekend...and did not die. As a matter of fact, I had a really good time. I also PRed a climb segment. That is mostly because you can only go so slow on a singlespeed. [Reply] * * * 2 0 chknpotpi FL (3 days ago) Good to see so many people's ego so viscerally tied to their T-Shirt size instead of shopping for geometry numbers that suit them. [Reply] * * * 1 0 Struggleteam (3 days ago) Yeah not so much shirt size IMO because people drink too many oatsodas. Plenty of 5'5" dudes in xl tee shirts out there. To me its more the height charts they give you that are misleading. I'm 6'2" but I'm a knuckle dragger with positive ape index. My reach is that of somebody 6'6". So the height chart they provide means f@ck all to me. [Reply] * * * 1 0 zephxiii (3 days ago) I still ride my 2012 Spark and 2013 Scale with 69.5 HA and find them quite enjoyable...and yes I also have a 65 HA 150mm bike too. Also have a 2018 Scale HT with 6.95 HA and 426mm chainstays, bike rocks. [Reply] * * * 2 0 Jamminator (3 days ago) After 27 years of riding MTB's as a 6'3" (190cm) tall rider, it finally feels like we are in the era of bikes for people like me... [Reply] * * * 2 0 kosmowf (3 days ago) My 2018 Slash is a better long-legged trail bike for chunk riding than my new Fuel EX. And the frame is a freaking pound and a half lighter! [Reply] * * * 1 0 southshorepirate FL (2 days ago) My current gravel bike is less twitchy than my early MTBs. Yes, 5yo bikes are not "outdated", but don't tell me modern geo isn't more fun to ride in the vast majority of circumstances. [Reply] * * * 1 0 belial901 (19 hours ago) 2015 i was riding my antidote lifeline already since 2 years, and let me tell you. That bikes geo is more modern than most bikes right now. 445 reach, 450 cs, 63 HA, and about 340BB [Reply] * * * 2 0 twonsarelli FL (3 days ago) My 2016 insurgent had something like a 72 degree sta. Aside from that, it felt pretty perfect. [Reply] * * * 2 1 cougar797 (3 days ago) Find an old frame in a reach number you like, pop an angle adjust headset in if you want more slack, and go for a fraction of the cost. [Reply] * * * 1 0 brodoyouevenbike (3 days ago) 2015 mondraker foxy, still feels great, long-ass arms here and never felt comfortable even on DH bikes with "wide" 720mm bars back in the day. [Reply] * * * 2 3 wyorider (3 days ago) The Schwinn cruisers that the Repack posse used and initially copied the geometry from were “modern” by every metric except seat tube angle. It was stupid consumers who didn’t want a bike that “looks like grandpa’s newspaper delivery bike” that lead to the inferior 71/73 geometry we all suffered through for about 15 years. Thanks to the skills and terrain progression on BC’s North Shore, riders and frame builders (re)discovered the benefits of longer wheelbase and slacker head tubes-the excessively steep geometry that had become the standard just didn’t work as well for challenging, technical mountain biking. The only significant change in geometry has been steep seat tube angles-and those are possible because dropper posts get the seat out of the way. All the other changes have just been undoing consumer driven stupidity. [Reply] * * * 2 3 jalopyj FL (3 days ago) I recently went on a ride on my father in law's 2021 Levo. Size Medium with 66 HTA, 435 reach and 450 chainstays vs.a size "medium" Privateer 141 with 64 HTA, a 465 reach and 440 chainstays. The handling on the outdated geometry felt so incredibly intuitive and cornering felt great. I was able to feel the grip on both wheels throughout the arc of a corner and feeling the front get weighted with so much confidence felt great. On the flip side, the "safety net" with my Privateer feels much wider, but I think the front center on modern bikes are getting a little out of hand. I find I need to make a "choice" with my body position to more actively weight the front or rear of the bike, but feel disconnected or like I'm reigning in a freight train. I'll likely be sizing down with my next bike. [Reply] * * * 1 1 90sMTBEnjoyer (3 days ago) I think this may have been due to the shorter rear centre on the privateer? [Reply] * * * 1 0 Ben-jackson33 FL (3 days ago) I have a 2016 Nukeproof mega and I think I still absolutely rip! However it is starting to feel slower compared to others bikes. But it’s not the bike it’s the rider eh? [Reply] * * * 3 0 No-AI-here (3 days ago) Try convincing me that 10 extra pounds is going to improve handling. [Reply] * * * 3 0 Dogl0rd FL (3 days ago) Depends on the industry [Reply] * * * 2 0 nvranka (3 days ago) Those of us who live somewhere with steep gnar have benefitted, but everyone else seems to be overbiked no doubt about it. [Reply] * * * 3 0 Stinkbug2 (3 days ago) What exactly is ‘pretentious elitism’? …oh right. [Reply] * * * 2 0 scottiemill FL (3 days ago) 2004 Giant DH comp was fantastic, till it exploded in 2016. Loved that bike! Ha [Reply] * * * 1 0 ronan0 FL (2 days ago) 26" Yeti sb66c here with more modern super gravity tires, shock, and upgraded Pike with coil, latest skf seals and damper race tune. The geometry is great. [Reply] * * * 1 0 foggnm (2 days ago) I won't ever get rid of my Nukeproof Reactor 290. It is a design that is a few years old but is perfect IMO. I haven't ridden anything in the 130-150 range that can match it. [Reply] * * * 1 0 ReformedRoadie (3 days ago) If you have a PF BB, an eccentric BB @ 9pm position (form drive side) can slightly steepen the SA and lengthen reach. [Reply] * * * 3 0 robomatic (3 days ago) That would also reduce chainstay length right? important to note if true [Reply] * * * 1 0 ReformedRoadie (3 days ago) @robomatic: true. [Reply] * * * 2 0 Ryawesomerpm (3 days ago) My bike as soon as after I buy it. [Reply] * * * 1 0 labourde (3 days ago) Mondraker had already the forward geometry on its 2013 XR models (the first one with the 10mm long stem). [Reply] * * * 4 2 joni0001984 (3 days ago) Anything above 59 degrees HTA is a golden oldie. Go to bed, boomer. [Reply] * * * 3 1 jimicarl (3 days ago) Grow a brain, teensy bopper. [Reply] * * * 2 0 bicitechmtb (3 days ago) I still use a 2005 bike geo... [Reply] * * * 2 0 Ynotgorilla FL (3 days ago) I stil use 2016 nicolai bike geo [Reply] * * * 1 0 mutante (2 days ago) Trek, that took all that was good in Gary Fisher's Genesis geometry concept, and threw it in the trash. [Reply] * * * 1 0 gorideabicycle (2 days ago) Did downhill strava segments or instagram get us to where we are now? Sad times [Reply] * * * 1 0 r-rocket (1 days ago) Outdated geometry is the bike you have right now. Modern geometry is the bike they want to sell you right now. [Reply] * * * 1 0 Superboost (3 days ago) If you have to ask, you probably have outdated geometry. [Reply] * * * 1 0 Arctic601 (3 days ago) This was a good informative article. I appreciate it. [Reply] * * * 1 0 Airboy123 (2 days ago) Soon the Grim Donut will be the norm for "modern" geometry. [Reply] * * * 1 0 KanuckAbroad (2 days ago) 71/73 were the good ole days. [Reply] * * * 1 0 y9pema FL (2 days ago) it's not the arrow, it's the archer. [Reply] * * * 3 4 suspended-flesh FL (3 days ago) Modern geo sucks. I like 2015 reach. My hands barely reach the bars as it is. [Reply] * * * 7 1 L0rdTom (3 days ago) Buy the right size? [Reply] * * * 1 0 suspended-flesh FL (3 days ago) @L0rdTom: I bought a Large. I'm 6' 1". That should work. If that's not what PB engineers think I should ride, I no longer care. Bikes are fun. I have fun. Edit - that said, I did buy an XL DH bike. [Reply] * * * 3 0 Bro-LanDog (2 days ago) @suspended-flesh: a large is too long for you?? I'm 6'2" and a large finally fits! [Reply] * * * 1 0 suspended-flesh FL (2 days ago) @Bro-LanDog: Large should be our size but things got stretched out since 2015. People are riding XXL because they listen to online BS. [Reply] * * * 1 0 L0rdTom (2 days ago) @suspended-flesh: Maybe people like them for their riding style and trails? Honestly my S5 Enduro feels perfect and I'm only 188cm, but the tracks here are steep and very tight. If I rode a lot of bikepark I'd go longer at both ends without question. [Reply] * * * 1 0 Bro-LanDog (2 days ago) @suspended-flesh: no way lol run a shorter stem. I remember riding a 440mm reach on a 'L' with a 70mm stem. Now a 480mm reach and a 35mm stem things are perfect [Reply] * * * 2 0 suspended-flesh FL (2 days ago) @Bro-LanDog: Yep I use a 33mm Renthal stem. I like em short. I was saying my old Large is way too 'short' by 'modern' geo standards, but I like iit fine. I sold the XL DH bike. I like a smaller bike. I was joking about my hands barely reaching the bars. I guess I said a lot of confusing sh1t - sorry! [Reply] * * * 1 0 thewanderingtramp (3 days ago) 1m wide bars coming soon [Reply] * * * 1 1 swoofty (2 days ago) It's not the bike. It's the rider. Always. [Reply] * * * 1 3 Dogl0rd FL (3 days ago) The riser bar fad is just beginning [Reply] * * * 2 0 VtVolk (3 days ago) But riser bars were very much a thing 20 years ago… [Reply] * * * 3 0 Bro-LanDog (2 days ago) Low bars are for dirt roadies [Reply] Post a Comment Login or Sign Up * About Us Contacts FAQ Terms of Use Privacy Policy Sign Up! Sitemap * Advertise Advertising * Cool Features Submit a Story Product Photos Videos Privacy Request Manage Cookie Preferences * RSS Pinkbike RSS Pinkbike Twitter Pinkbike Facebook Pinkbike Youtube Pinkbike Instagram Newsletter Signup Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved. dv65 0.087641 Mobile Version of Website Otomatik - 198.90.5.100 CloudFlare DNS Türk Telekom DNS Google DNS Open DNS OSZAR »