It's INTERBIKE time!!!

so did anyone in Whistler snap spy shots of the v8?? :)

1) I never suggested NO other suspension designer take sag into account. At all. I merely wrote (and you conveniently forgot to include this in your quote) that I did not know of any or many others that incorporated that thinking into their SP angles.

2)I don't remember writing (or thinking) that 68 degrees (or so) was an ideal seat angle for pedaling. If you think it is, then we're talking different languages. Classic 'world cup' pedaling numbers are 71/73. Obviously on the shore that's too steep for the way down, but for the way up, the word 'classic' is apropos. 68 is slack - the Altitude is not a shore bike per se, but some people will absolutely want to make it work there.

I have a feeling you're not going to see it my way, and that's cool - it's not my design, it's just a design I really happen to like. It pedaled great and was a blast on the way down. What I will do is get Jonny from Rocky to respond and let you know why it's not Bullshit or a backstory, and when he does so, be a good chap and admit it, k?

I have a really, really big problem with this comment:

"Sporting a whopping 76 degree seat angle, the Altitude is designed to settle into an optimum pedaling position after suspension squat is accounted for, rather than before. It's funny, but not many bikes are designed this way…"

This suggests so many things that are just so wrong.

1) This suggests that no other suspension designers take suspension sag into account.

2) This suggests that most "all-mountain" bikes (including Rocky Mountains) are cruising around with seat angles that are 7-8 degrees too slack.

Honestly. When was the last time you rode a bike and thought "Man, this bike is awesome, I just wish the seat tube was 8 degrees steeper."

Seat angle is such a floating point anyhow. Seatpost offset, position on the rails, etc. etc. all throw this number out of whack. My suspicion is that Rocky decided on a really steep seat angle to create some space for rear wheel travel and decided on some sort of backstory to compensate.

And why no such compensation on the front end as well? Oh ya, because it's BULLSHIT.

Seat Angle Rage !

Pete:

As a journalist, you shouldn't take it personally when somebody questions the information that you've reported. I'm not attacking your writing, just not a fan of some of the "science" thrown out there by bike companies.

Anyhow, I'll spot you a few degrees. This bike is still 3-4 degrees steeper than your standard "all-mountain" bike. Look at the picture you've taken. High offset race face seatpost, seat fairly far back on the rails. That seat is probably sitting right where anything else with a slacker seat tube, no-offset post would sit.

Oh man. This whole thing has been really bugging me. This gets a bit nerdy…

First up, Im going to say that I think its stupid that bike geometries are measured in their non-sagged position. It would make way more sense if everybody quoted things in a neutral riding position. It would be easier to compare hardtails to dh to all-mountain bikes. But that`s not the way it is. Everybody does it full extension and at the very least this makes it relatively easy to compare the geometries of bikes with similar travel. Taking into account differences in seat position, suspension set-up, etc. it's almost impossible to know what the angles actually are on a given bike while you're riding it, but at least this gives us a basis for comparing bikes to one another. The actual number doesn't really matter, but knowing the head angle of your new bike is going to be a degree steeper than your old one does.

Where this is the biggest problem is with hardtails. When you think about it, the geometry of a hardtail is constantly changing. The bike is at its slackest while its sitting over in the corner, and steepest at full travel. Over the years, I believe that designers have compensated for this. Rigid bikes used to have what, a 72 degree head angle? Gradually this got slacker.

Full suspension bikes are almost simpler to think about in terms of geometry. At full compression, front and rear, the geometry should be the same as in it's unweighted position (assuming equal travel, front and rear). Lets ignore braking and such, but, theoretically, the change in geometry should be less with a full suspension bike than with a hardtail as you have motion at both ends of the bike.

Let's assume a 5 inch travel bike like the Rocky. You would probably run about 30[HTML_REMOVED]#37; sag on such a beast? That works out to an inch-and-a-half of sag. Lets assume your fork gets about half of that, so 3/4 inches of sag on the front. So the differential between your front and rear from a neutral position is 3/4 inches (the difference between the two sags).

Now, I've never drawn this out (for the rear), but I know that on a hardtail, an inch of fork travel steepens your angles by about 1 degree, give or take. I'm assuming that a similar amount of travel in the rear is going to have the same effect, only in reverse (i.e. one inch of rear travel, no fork movement, slackens your angles by about 1 degree). So looking at the Rocky design, you could assume that when you sit on the bike, the angles are going to slacken up by about 1 degree. That still leaves you with a 75 degree seat angle. For this bike to settle into a neutral riding position where you had the 73 degree "optimal seat tube angle", there would have to be 3 inches differential in sag between the front and the rear of the bike. How many people run 0% sag up front and 60% sag in the rear?

This is why I don't buy what Rocky is saying. And by looking at their XC race bikes, I don't think they really believe it either.

2009 Element Race (full suspension)- Seat angle, medium(585mm tt), 73.5 degrees
2009 Vertex 70 RSL (hardtail)- Seat angle, medium(585mm tt), 73.5 degrees

This is why I don't buy what Rocky is saying. And by looking at their XC race bikes, I don't think they really believe it either.

It's an industry based on perception and image. You tell someone that the seat angle has sag compensated, and it's going to separate the bike out from others, and some will buy into it, even though they don't know why.

the limited edition WC fox 40 and DHX rc4 are pretty snazzy.

Nomad looks anorexic now
Knolly looks pretty decent

i think dirk got a seatpost jammed up his ass and is now looking for a victim to vent at.

hahaha

love the writing cam, especially this tag after the photo of the red XO deraileur. brilliant.

"Brandon has a custom red XO rear changer along with a red shifter on his Remedy. There were rumours of gold, purple and other colours floating around as well. No word on any fancy cable ends."

I have a seatpost jammed up my ass because I feel like a company is making shit up in order to sell product and I point it out?

And biggles, I realize that this is about perception and image. I just don't happen to think that companies should be able to say whatever they want in order to sell bikes.

I have a seatpost jammed up my ass because I feel like a company is making shit up in order to sell product and I point it out?

And biggles, I realize that this is about perception and image. I just don't happen to think that companies should be able to say whatever they want in order to sell bikes.

People are allowed to say whatever they want in order to get elected, so why not to sell shit?

C'mon, buyer beware but don't lets try to ban enthusiastic advertising…

i'm just teasing.

i don't necessarily think it's bs tho, probably because i find most seatposts to be too slack anyways. if i'm buying a new bike i'm not gonna base that decision on marketing schtick, i'll listen to the opinions of others whove ridden the same bike and test it out for myself.

I have a seatpost jammed up my ass because I feel like a company is making shit up in order to sell product and I point it out?

And biggles, I realize that this is about perception and image. I just don't happen to think that companies should be able to say whatever they want in order to sell bikes.

Companies can say anything they want at all. If it's false advertising, then they will probably get caught, but if it's something that they believe makes a difference, but don't have any proof, then why not use it to spin your product?

dirk makes some solid points in there. Tough to argue with that guy, trust me I know.