Reply to comment

Nov. 16, 2020, 1:05 p.m. -  Andy Eunson

Part of the road bike thing being the same are UCI rules requiring a double diamond,  requiring saddle tilt to be within a  certain range, requiring a saddle set back from the bb be within a certain range, weight requirements etc. Manufacturers are kind of stuck using wiggly tubes like Pinarello or aero crap as distinguishing one frame from another.  Mountain bikes on the other had went from long slack things in the 80s to road bike type Geo in the 90s and only in recent years has geometry been developed that works well for us. I’m all for adjustable frames. But how many people would actually use this feature? How many bike reviews have I read where the reviewer says such and such bike has a high and low setting so I stuck it in low and left it there. That’s just lazy reviewing. Or stating that a super steep seat tube angle is more efficient but not explaining the reasoning behind it. To me the steeper seat angle is to get short stays and not have taller riders centre of mass too far back. As a result the small bikes I ride, because I’m under 5’5” sit me too far forward which puts more weight on my hands and I get numb hands. Tall riders need a longer rear centre. Oh but long rear centre isn’t “playful.” Yet a long front end is? To me front end geometry is far far more important to a bikes playfulness then wheelbase. In skiing turn radius is more important that length to a certain extent. My GS skis are actually ski cross skis. 185 long with a 23 turn radius. A FIS legal 180 gs ski has I think a 35 meter radius. My skis are far more turny even being 5 cm longer.  We’re kind of forced to compare bikes based on geometric parameters because trying to test ride numerous bikes is not that easy. So I fully support bikes with adjustable geometries.

Post your comment

Please log in to leave a comment.