Exactly. MTB adopted road bike geometry (think 73 seat and 71 head tube back in the day ), from road biking. This did not take into account the sometimes much steeper climbs and associated effect on the seat tube angle.
Also, at the time there was no rear suspension sag to impact the seat tube angle (which is magnified by climbing).
Current designs are starting to do that but what is likely needed is a seat tube angle with sag on flat land, as well as a seat tube angle with sag while climbing (industry adopted number so every manufacture uses the same metric), to be part of the geometry table. Then design the bike to hit the proper angle with sag and sag plus climbing.
Seat tube angle unweighted on a full suspension bike is irrelevant.
March 29, 2021, 11:16 a.m. - jason
Exactly. MTB adopted road bike geometry (think 73 seat and 71 head tube back in the day ), from road biking. This did not take into account the sometimes much steeper climbs and associated effect on the seat tube angle. Also, at the time there was no rear suspension sag to impact the seat tube angle (which is magnified by climbing). Current designs are starting to do that but what is likely needed is a seat tube angle with sag on flat land, as well as a seat tube angle with sag while climbing (industry adopted number so every manufacture uses the same metric), to be part of the geometry table. Then design the bike to hit the proper angle with sag and sag plus climbing. Seat tube angle unweighted on a full suspension bike is irrelevant.