Upload your photos
Forgot your password?
It’s quite simple. Steep seat tube angles are needed for taller riders on bikes with ridiculously short chain stays. The reason I think is that it’s cheaper to make every frame size use the same rear triangle. The manufacturers tell us short stays are more (I despise this word) playful. Yet we see longer and longer bikes. That’s more stable. Make up your mind guys. Twitchy or stable. Maybe. Just maybe if the rear end was a bit longer the front wouldn’t need to be so long? My Chameleon by all accounts should suck. I have the 29er fork so I can use plus tires, but I don’t. Over forked with a 150 36. I run the adjustable dropouts as far back as they go. Seat tube angle is, gasp, 71 static. Probably 73 ish at full 3 cm sag. It climbs better longer and I didn’t really notice any lack of (Puke) playfulness either.
I’ve never read a real reason why steep seat tube angles are said to be “more efficient”. I can guess it’s all about tall riders and dinky stays but when I see guys riding one of these bikes they are sitting really upright. Sorry that’s less efficient. No cross country racer sits bolt upright. It’s not better. Might be more comfortable. But that’s something else. If seat tube angles continue to get more steep I see a real market for gel seat covers.
Please log in to leave a comment.