Jan. 9, 2015, 4:18 p.m. -  soren

#!markdown i would define the "actual seat tube angle" as the angle of the seat post. theangle of the seat post is far more relevant of a measurement seeing as our seat posts regularly extend 7 or more inches from the top of our seat tube, which is higher than the horizontal or "effective" top tube measurement. As someone who has been shopping for a new mountain bike that is notably more capable burly and spry than my v1 nomad and having thoroughly digested most major manufactures geometry charts and frame designs it is my impression that far to many of these manufactures provide incomplete, unclear, deceptive geometry charts. some are missing reach, actual top tube length, bottom bracket height, axle to crown and tire size that bb hight was measured with or weather the seat tube angle or top tube length is actual or effective. they really should all have a model visual model that corilates directly to the numbers. here is why i feel that it is an important differentiation. i will start by saying I dont like to waste my time squabling about stuff but i feel that it is quite relevant to a bike that is meant to pedal well. this is because when a slack seat post angle (calling it that for claritys sake) is employed it provides much more leverage that weights the rear wheel causing the bike to want to wheelie or apply to much weight to the rear wheel which may stick it in holes unless you make massive body movments to transfer weight forward mid climb. Even more important is body position which is relevant to our ability to make power, when that seat gets too far behind the bottom bracket it really starts to detract from our body's ability to make power. also for handlng i for one i wanna be up on it in the center of the bike when im hammering a technical climb trying to maneuver and mountain goat up shit, not struggling to keep my body weight balanced over and worrying about my rear wheel hanging up .