Sam Burkhardt
Product Manager Interview

Transition SBG - From The Source

Words Cam McRae
Photos Skye Schillhammer
Date Aug 24, 2017

"Some Bullshit Gimmick!" It was a eureka moment for Sam. 

We were sitting having a beer at the place that used to be Hoz's (now Roland's) in Whistler Creekside. We rode some bone shaking Garbo down to the new Creekside trails and, with special permission, we did some ridiculous brown pow turns in a sweet gladed, moss-blanketed forest. Then we skipped over to a slab fest I had never ridden before. So good... Anyway we were a couple of beers deep and Transition's Product Manager, Sam Burkhardt blurts out the aforementioned slogan:, "Some Bullshit Gimmick!" He had been working on the perfect acronym to mock Transition's own acronym. A solid strategy for a company that takes pride in poking fun at itself and every other company. Particularly the biggest ones. 

At that moment I realized that the way to tell the story of SBG (an acronym that may have been carefully selected to poke one of the largest bears in the business) was to interview Sam. If he was shooting this straight with a few media folks around, he may just give us straight goods on Speed Based Geometry. Or at least straighter than most. 

Like many of you I first suspected that SBG was more well-aimed industry mockery from Transition. They are after all the home to  Huck To Flat, T.I.T.S. and P.A.B.S.T acronyms, the Giddy-Up suspension platform and the Woven Tight Fibre carbon layup process. WTF indeed. So let's get that out of the way immediately and then hear WTF is going on with SBG.. 

Moar Slabs

Sam slabbing in Whistler. This one got steep before you hit the right hand catcher's mitt at the bottom. 

Cam McRae - So to be clear for our audience, this Speed Balanced Geometry isn't a joke. How can we continue to take the company seriously now that you have joined the marketing acronym ranks?

Sam Burkhardt - Maybe a real acronym is a reason to take us more seriously? We had a lot of internal conflict about attaching a TLA (three letter acronym) to the SBG concept. We have always made a point of poking fun at all the marketing fluff and the need to name every tiny feature of a bike with some kind of trademark. It took some soul searching, but ultimately we felt that it was difficult to talk about our geometry direction if we didn't have a name for it. We didn't want customers to have to remember, or necessarily understand, the specific numbers related to fork offset and geo and wanted to give them an easy way to talk about it. It's a lot clearer for everyone if a person can walk in to a bike shop and say "I want to upgrade my fork and I need one with SBG offset for 27.5 wheels." You can't rely on everyone to remember all the hard numbers or trust them to have enough understanding of the tech to know what they are even discussing. Of course we wanted to connect Transition with a recognizable name for an improvement in bicycle geometry, but it was equally important that we make it easy for people to identify and talk about what they are riding.  

Can you give me the chairlift pitch for SBG?

First I'm going to lower this safety bar. Oh, sorry... did I hit you in the head? Hey, don't drop your helmet. Did you see my new Transition? It's sweet and I feel way more confident than I did on my old bike. The steering feels calmer, the bike feels more balanced and easier to ride. It's sick on the downhills, but when I'm at home and have to climb singletrack it still feels rad. It feels like the bike rides better at all speeds. You should totally buy one. 

What was the impetus of this change in direction?

It came directly from testing and our overwhelming belief that the SBG concept was superior to what we had been riding previously. We are always looking for ways to make our bikes better so we can offer tools to help anyone's riding progress. We want to offer bikes that are fun to ride, but also encourage you to ride harder and faster. We feel that SBG is a real improvement in bicycle handling. We wouldn't have coined our first serious acronym, or worked with fork manufacturers to get new things made if we didn't feel the benefits to the overall bike are real. We have a long history of poking fun at acronyms, but what we have really made fun of is gimmicks. SBG is real and noticeable; not an acronym we created for some random widget we added to your bike. 

How much influence did Chris Porter have on this initiative?

Lars was first inspired to test different fork offsets on his own bike after reading an article from the UK that featured Chris Porter and some similar testing. Conceptually we have been well aware of the variables in fork offset with head angle and how they "should" effect handling. I had read Tony Foale's book on motorcycle design and our product team all had years of experience with frame design and bicycle geometry. Designing a frame and fork together has always been normal in traditional steel road bikes. In the moto world, changing triple clamps is a common way of tuning how the motorcycle handles. Bringing it to mountain bikes has always felt like an endeavor when we are purchasing off the shelf parts from a third party. After digging in to those articles, Lars tested extensively on his own bikes and came to his own conclusions about what worked best. Then he brought others in the company up to speed with some abbreviated testing. He had us try some of the setups he liked as well as some of the setups he didn't like. That way we were able to experience the spectrum of different configurations in a similar way that he had. Those Chris Porter articles definitely inspired Lars to start playing with offset, but we went through our on testing to find what we liked best.

Toilet Bowl

We called this move the toilet bowl. Sam flushing with style. 

Other companies are moving to longer, lower and slacker while keeping the status quo for fork offsets. Transition obviously thinks that's a compromise. What would you have had to give up if you hadn't asked manufacturers to create new offsets for you?

At this point I don't really know what we have had different. We look at the bike geometry as a whole, so if we couldn't get the SBG forks from RockShox and Fox I am not sure what we would be offering you in terms of geometry. I can't say that there is one thing in particular that would be given up... the whole bike would have been different. I would also add that we needed both the major fork manufacturers to support SBG offset forks or we wouldn't have been comfortable bringing the bikes to market. With both RockShox and Fox offering forks we are able to offer a huge range of fork models and different price levels for our SBG bikes. I really don't know what our new lineup would look like if we weren't able to get both of them on board with making the fork configurations we needed. We definitely appreciate that they were willing to make big investments in new tooling to produce what we asked for.  

How did companies get to the current offsets for 27.5 and 29ers (as in not SBG)?

That is a really interesting question actually. That is something that we asked ourselves as well. You go back to the old days of 71 degree head angles, 26 wheels, 120mm stems and skinny bars and there was a certain way your bike was supposed to handle for the trails we had at the time. We had a fork offset range based on those features and trails and it just sort of stayed in that range as other things evolved. Head angles got slacker, stems got shorter, bars got wider, but for some reason that fork offset stayed the same and no one seemed to question it. As you go up in wheel size the current "standard" fork offsets give you roughly equal trail for a given head angle. But it wasn't always that way. In the early days of 29 no one was making longer offset forks for the bigger wheels. Genesis geometry tried to fix the handling with a longer 29 specific offset, but it might not have been the right way to solve the problem. The real problem was the rest of the geo. The early 29ers were too steep and too short and didn't handle as well as they could regardless of what fork offset you put on them. Basically, we got to the fork offsets we have now because of the 90s and I think we can all agree that mountain biking is a lot different now. 

Porter talks about moving things further and further until some negative characteristics begin to be exhibited. Did you reach that point? With length or fork offset or head angle? What did the bike do when you pushed too far?

Of course, but I don't think there is a hard line where you can say something is suddenly too far. Different people might have a different opinion on that based on a lot of different factors. Each bike has to handle a huge variety of terrain, but the type of terrain will vary based on the bike model. Something that works well on a bike like the Patrol in the gnarliest terrain wouldn't be ideal on a shorter travel bike that sees more mellow terrain. Likewise, you can have some setups that seem great on paper, but they just don't work in the real world. You have to balance so many different factors to offer people bikes that are comfortable to ride and suitable for more than one specific riding environment. 

What would you most expect riders to notice with SBG?

With SBG you will notice increased front wheel grip, calmer steering, a bigger window to shift your weight around and an overall more confident safer feeling bike. Tight uphill switchbacks will feel easier with less front wheel push, you will have more control on difficult trail surfaces and off camber sections, more confidence when you start to drift or break traction, you will feel more comfortable on steep lines, and you will feel more stable at high speeds There is more low speed control but more high speed stability as well. The bike benefits from deliberate rider inputs and you don't have to spend as much energy making micro corrections. The handling differences on an SBG bike are very noticeable, but it gets really interesting when you go back to a non SBG bike. The non SBG bike will feel nervous and twitchy at all all speeds and it will feel like you need to make more inputs to keep the bike stable and tracking where you want it to go. The SBG bike is more planted and predictable and allows the rider to push the bike harder with less effort and feel safer doing it.


Of course Sam's going to send it. 

Are there any traits you might have appreciated in the previous iterations of the bikes that may be lost with SBG? I'm thinking specifically about the fact that I find it harder to get longer bikes up on the rear wheel. 

We honestly don't feel we have lost any of the characteristics of our old models. In fact, it's quite the opposite. We feel that SBG has allowed us to keep the playful agile nature of our previous bikes while simultaneously improving their stability and control. Some of the high speed handling traits and weight balance benefits of an SBG bike could have been achieved with increased chainstay length, however they would have come at the expense of low speed agility and general playfulness. With SBG you get to have a playful bike that is still stable and planted when you need it to be. That is part of where the SBG name comes from. It's balanced at all speeds. 

Do you expect other companies to jump on this bandwagon?

Of course we think people will try and copy what we are doing with SBG; but if they don't commit to actually testing the different options and reaching their own conclusion about what works best for them, they will likely get it wrong. We have ridden some of the setups that are "supposed to" be good, but we can tell you first hand that they don't end up feeling right. Bicycle geometry and steering dynamics are complicated and you can't point to a single number and say that it is the only thing to pay attention to. As they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so our feelings won't be hurt when other people try and bring out SBG style bikes.

How many SBG bikes are out in the world already? How have riders been reacting?

We started with a small number of mules, but at this point we have a fleet of several dozen different pre-production samples that have all been ridden by a lot of different people. We have had nothing but positive response from everyone, and we have specifically let some more beginner level riders test the bikes with very positive results. It has been interesting to see people with limited riding experience pick up on the benefits and notice it in their riding. Beyond our own fleet of bikes, we have several notable industry friends that have been modifying other bike models to try and get more SBG style handling. I think that says a lot about the benefits of SBG and we are really excited to get out to the demos and see more people ride the SBG bikes for the first time. 


Other companies have played with geometries like this for some time, but maybe without the change in fork offset. Could you be accused of acting in a way that suggests you have invented something that Mondraker and others are already doing? That may be the part of this (rather than the acronym) that seems counter to your anti-corporate, corporate ethos. 

It feels like every new bike release for the past several years has touted that it's longer and often slacker. While it is true that our new SBG models are longer and slacker than our previous versions; that is only part of the SBG concept. Early on I thought it would have been funny to promote our new bikes as shorter (in reference to the fork offset) and steeper (in reference to the seat tube angle) than our previous models. You know... poking fun at those ubiquitous buzz words by going the other direction. Some of the European brands (Mondraker being especially early and notable) have pushed really extreme reach numbers for years, but what we are doing is different. The fork offset change is the biggest component of SBG and those brands offering huge reach numbers aren't doing that. I think they have a different way of looking at how a bike should handle. I won't say they are wrong, but I think we are achieving something better and more balanced with our direction. In our SBG bikes, the increase in reach is actually pretty modest, but it's necessary to keep the sizing and handling correct. We aren't just trying to make bigger bikes, we are trying to make better bikes. I think it's a lot different than just stretching the bike out with longer and longer reach. 

To hear what I throught of SBG during my brief spin down to creekside,click here. 

Trending on NSMB


+2 Darryl Chereshkoff Merwinn
Cr4w  - Aug. 24, 2017, 9:16 a.m.

The slack HA/reduced offset idea is interesting. The Sentinel is pretty much the perfect next bike for me. But I'm concerned about fork availability down the road. As far as I can tell none of the big producers make a long travel 29er fork that's not 51mm. Will these new Transition frames be available as kits that include the fork? Does that mean customers will have to get their forks from Transition?


Andrew Major  - Aug. 24, 2017, 11:18 a.m.

From my own experiments with offset (44, 51, 55 on the same bike) the main factor to consider is stem length not HTA.

As top tubes get longer, stems get shorter and as stems get shorter handling gets twitchy. This is compounded by all the riders 'Ritchie Rude'ing' their handlebars (narrow bar has same effect as short stem). 

So as much as SBG is about a geometry package anyone with long top tube / super short stem (30/40mm) will likely prefer a shorter offset fork and anyone running a 50mm-70mm would probably prefer to stick with 51mm as a general concept.

Speaking of 29'ers solely of course.

+1 Merwinn
Cam McRae  - Aug. 24, 2017, 11:53 a.m.

Twitchier handling with shorter stems? Interesting. Maybe I'm thinking about it the wrong way because I've always thought and felt the opposite. 

A long stem means that wheel feedback (say a side impact from a rock on your wheel that we are trying to resist in a rock garden say) will have greater leverage on your hands will it not? Imagine mounting a handlebar to a manhole cover, right in the centre with no stem and then trying to twist with both hands. Now imagine trying to do the same thing (again twisting motion as we use on the bike - opposing forces with each hand) by mounting the bar on the outside rim of the cover, furtherest from the centre. 

You can also imagine someone grabbing the front wheel of your bike while you try to resist a rotational force they are applying. If we were talking about our hands working in concert ie. applying a force that was in direct opposition to the rotational forces then the longer stem would supply more leverage but we can't apply a force like that. Vectors at work and all that. 

The power you can generate with no stem is going to be much higher assuming a bar of equal length it seems to me. I also find that those who have issues with switchbacks on slack bikes often have longer stems. I don't have these issues. Interesting physics question and it's entirely possible I'm thinking about this the wrong way. 

Physics nerds, please help!


Merwinn  - Aug. 28, 2017, 11:50 a.m.

Agreed. I always equated 'twitchy' to the larger steering corrections required by your arms when riding an old school 120 mm stem as compared to a more modern 30 mm length stem.  A short 30 mm stem may require finer movements to effectuate the same change in direction, but I would not call that small movement 'twitchy' regardless of its comparative size. Of course it also depends on the bike's HA: steep HA + long stem = twitch-o-matic on the descents, IMO.


+1 Cam McRae
Andrew Major  - Aug. 24, 2017, 12:02 p.m.

As I understand it a longer stem moves a rider's weight forward which in turn stabilizes the wheel - particularly at higher speeds. 

So reducing offset is compensating for the more rearward weight distribution of the shorter stem relative to the front wheel.

Cam McRae  - Aug. 24, 2017, 12:16 p.m.

Good point re. body weight Andrew. I hadn't thought of that component. Perhaps because to me that is mostly a body position factor when riding out of the saddle downhills. Maybe this is a holdout from seated XC geo considerations?


Andrew Major  - Aug. 24, 2017, 1:13 p.m.

Body position (standing) is variable but there is only so far over the bar a rider can get in terms of weighting the front wheel? Shortening the stem 20mm - while lenghtening the reach a similar amount - isn't changing a rider's position relative the handlebar but it is changing the relationship of the handlebar to the wheel. 

Two other factors to consider with current trends are generally narrower bars - which you wrote about- (less weight on the front wheel) and much higher stack heights (when it comes to saddle-bar relationships bikes are actually trending longer + higher) which is also moving weight off the front wheel. 

Interesting that Specialized has also changed geo for the Epic around a shorter stem (60mm - short for XC) and reduced offset but the Enduro this year gets a longer TT and shorter stem (45mm vs. 60mm) with the same offset. I'd bet $20 Specialized Enduro 2019 has a reduced offset Ohlins fork.


One last comment (apologies for the long reply) but I think the throw-back XC geo argument makes for nice marketing but is perhaps being overplayed?

Not that mountain bikes haven't evolved from long stem/narrow bar/steep HTA 26" gravel grinders but having ridden 29'ers a long time 51mm offset wasn't adapted en masse until Fox released their 34 for the 2012 model year - RockShox followed suit with the release of the 29'er Pike - specifically to deal with 29'ers evolving to become slacker more aggressive machines.


generationfourth  - Jan. 29, 2019, 1:58 p.m.

Just checked... the 2019 Specialized Enduro comes with Fox/Rockshox now and still only 51mm. Where do you want to send the $20?

J/k. Overall still a good read while I contemplate if my new longer reach/longer wheelbase/slacker HTA frame + 45mm stem is putting me too forward over my 46mm offset fork. Overall bike feels great for climbing (steep STA) and plowing rock gardens but having trouble cornering- bike feels like its understeering and the back end slides out a bit too easily. Trying to keep myself centered but I think that’s translating to me being too far forward. Any thoughts? Obviously technique needs work but wondering what adjustments I can make.


+1 generationfourth
Andrew Major  - Jan. 29, 2019, 10:45 p.m.

Ha! Nice call out though!

Who would have thought that after all that R&D Specialized would abandon Ohlins after one season??? (I'm guessing the folks at Cane Creek sent them a nice condolence card).


1) It's a great thing that the Enduro is still 51mm. That's what it was designed around. Plenty of companies are selling 29'er bikes with shorter offsets that would actually benefit from 51mm because it's a lot easier to be on-trend then explain why your bike works a small % better with the offset it was designed around. 

2) All of the Specialized bikes that were redesigned for the 2019 model year have reduced offset. See Stumpy, Stumpy EVO, Epic. The Enduro is just late to the party!


To answer your question, my rule (and smarter people than me back this up) when it comes to 29'ers is that for 40mm and shorter stems I go shorter offset (44-46-whatever) and for 60mm and longer stems I go longer offset (51). There are other factors for sure that will play a role (BB height, rear center, etc) but this is a good general starting point.

Basically, if your Reach is long enough to require that short a 40mm stem then the shorter offset will help with high-speed handling. If your Reach is short enough you need a 60mm+ stem the stem is long enough that high-speed handling will be good and the 51mm offset corrects some steering issues. 

You're in that 45-55mm stem grey area. If it was my bike, and the fit worked, I would go 10mm shorter on the stem or possibly a bit narrower on the handlebar (if you're running 800mm+) OR trade + cash (cash going your way) CSU's with someone desperate to get on trend with the reduced offset and bump up to a 50mm or 60mm.

Obviously, WAY cheaper and more reversible to experiment with stem length. One of your buddies probably has a 35mm stem kicking around you could borrow!?


+1 Andrew Major
generationfourth  - Feb. 1, 2019, 8:26 p.m.

Yeah, I had a good chuckle when I read your bet. I was surprised to see Ohlins out that quickly. You were right about how quickly the industry would adopt and market the shorter offset fork... that's nearly all of spec's lineup!

Judging from my predicament with just a 45mm stem and 46mm offset, and from what was said in the article about how Transition had mixed results with slightly different setups, it seems like a shorter offset fork isn't exactly the right answer for a lot of riders! (depending on many little factors)


re: shorter stem/46mm offset debacle

Your rule of thumb helped a lot and since there was no way for me to go longer on the stem I started by trying out a shorter 35mm stem. Overall I've been very happy with the new bike fit. It's a Starling Murmur (Perry's review did have some influence on my purchase decision)

The order I planned on testing out:

1. Shorter 35mm stem, same spacer/bar height

2. Shorter 35mm stem, lower handlebar height by shifting spacers around

3. Shorter 35mm stem, and/or lower handlebar, and shaving off a tiny bit of handlebar width

4. Then onto messing with handlebar roll.. but I have a SQLabs bar (you had an influence on that! haha) and I feel the 12° backsweep kind of limits how much roll you can play with. I tried to keep the handlebar in the same exact position.

I guess step 0. was concentrate on keeping my weight more centered, and that helped a bit. But then the shorter 35mm stem came in and I got a ride on it today. And I'm happy to report that 10mm shorter made a huge noticeable difference! I don't have to consciously keep my body weight back and cornering felt a lot more natural. I think it helped quicken up the steering just a tad also. I will continue to test ride and adjusting my technique.

Thanks for your time and help. All my riding friends tend to glaze over when I try and nerd out about little things like this! Keep up the good content, I enjoy NSMB even though I'm in Southern California.

+1 Meister
awesterner  - Aug. 26, 2017, 12:53 p.m.

I just ordered a Sentinel frameset. Had a fair amount of choices for forks from them, opted for a fox factory 36. Their pricing is a bit better than last year as well.  Also DVO said they were offering new low offset lower next year as an upgrade. I've used a 46m offset and a 51mm offset on my Smuggler. The steering is absolutely calmer with the 46.  It's not a big change in mm and not on a bike with much reach, but back to back I could notice the difference in trail. Good stuff


Perry Schebel  - Aug. 27, 2017, 6:15 p.m.

the sentinel looks badass, indeed. love that they're launching in aluminum too.


+2 Cr4w Velocipedestrian
Darryl Chereshkoff  - Aug. 24, 2017, 10:11 a.m.

I have the exact same concern.... This bike checks my 3 must have boxes; aluminum, threaded BB and external rear brake routing. However I don't want to lock myself into a fork that doesn't really exist in the wild.


+1 Cr4w
[user profile deleted]  - Aug. 24, 2017, 11:05 a.m.

This comment has been removed.
+2 Meister pedalhound
Cam McRae  - Aug. 24, 2017, 11:24 a.m.

I think the willingness of Fox and RS to produce these forks for Transition, a small manufacturer, to me indicates that they have had interest from other parties. This is speculation but this is an expensive endeavour and imho it's unlikely they would have opened new moulds if there wasn't an expectation of demand beyond bikes Transition is producing.


0 Cr4w Meister
Andrew Major  - Aug. 24, 2017, 11:38 a.m.

Are there any new molds or are they just pressing 29" length stanchions into 650b offset fork crowns? I believe that's what Chris Porter did to test the theory?

*edit: although in Porter's case it was 26" crowns/offset for 27" wheels?


dtimms  - Aug. 24, 2017, 1:11 p.m.

2018 Specialized Epic is another example


+1 Cam McRae
Cameron Curtis  - Aug. 24, 2017, 8:22 p.m.

I agree with Andrew about reach and stem length. I have been experimenting with my new (to me) Blackcat 29er. Was getting a sore back, which I wasn't sure whether to attribute to having not ridden a hardtail forever, reach/stem/bar (or some combo), or carbon super stiff wheels (XTR tubular carbon). Last thing was that I was just going to have to admit I am old.... I wasn't having any of that of course so started with seat position and moved onto stem length. 90mm-->50mm saved my back, but I did really notice I was over steering especially on straight coming out of a turn and strangely my head was dropping as well. I have a 70 mm on the way and I am hoping that will be perfect. I was very surprised steering worsened with the shorter stem. I think there is a sweet spot based on the overall combo of reach as a composite of bar width, top tube, seat position and stem length. I think that really long stems have the effect Cam is describing where we are just so stretched out that our lever arm is applying too much force. Too short and we have automatically steer with dropping our shoulders which has a very large force. Useful when trying to lean over, but at least for me and my rutted tight Saskatchewan singletrack it leads to me washing up and down both sides of the ruts.


[user profile deleted]  - Aug. 24, 2017, 9:46 p.m.

This comment has been removed.

+3 Andrew Major Cam McRae Meister
c.ape  - Aug. 25, 2017, 3:24 a.m.

interesting. i didn't realise steering forces weren't fully understood. i always use the thought experiment of having a 1 metre stem - to turn from 90deg left to 90deg right would require covering an arc of 1.8m. you'd have to move your hands a lot to turn so you'd have a lot of leverage over the wheel, slowing steering response and stopping it from being twitchy. bar width has the same effect, extra width increases the arc required to steer so increases the leverage over the wheel and slows steering. that's why stem length and bar width should be considered together. increasing trail should just increase the self correcting trolley wheel effect and not change how fast or twitchy the steering response is. it's all clear as mud in my murky mind :o)


Please log in to leave a comment.