MEATengines 2022...

Posted by: AndrewMajor

Woo with -2° sounds great. Do you ever find yourself thinking you'd want something longer and slacker? Progressive fat bikes seem to be entirely the realm of custom builders.

In it's stock form the Woo has a 483mm reach in a size L compared to my 2019 Commencal Meta TR with a 475mm reach in a L, so it is certainly plenty long enough and I do think the extra ~1cm of reach is noticeable, could also be due to the reach of my Meta being shorter than the stated 475mm given the geo chart is for a shorter fork than the 150mm I'm running. I've heard some discrepancies between the geometry charts and the actual fork length that is specced with the Meta TR. At first I thought it felt too long (compared to what I am used to on the Meta), so I slammed the seat forward and have a short stem and bar with some healthy backsweep to push my hand position back.

Stock rigid fork on the Woo has a 515 A-C vs and a 130mm 29er for runs 541mm, which luckily enough comes out to 515mm at 20% sag. With the 2° angleset it's still not quite as slack as something like the Honzo or some other progressive hardtails, but it seems like it is well suited to my intentions for the bike. I would be very curious to measure what the actual sag comes out to with the fork and headset changes I have made.

I think the trend for fatbikes to err on the side of steeper headtube angles is a pretty valid choice given that the typical fatbike ride is pretty slow going and more XC-like. Riding in snow and riding a loaded bikepacking bike (the uses that seem to be most common for fatbikes) is a much much different experience than riding the fast downhill speeds that have pushed bikes to slacker and slacker headtubes, even when the opportunity is presented to let it rip on the downhills it's still nowhere near the speeds and steepness on most mtb trails. I think the Woo's geometry is a good middle ground that could work well for a pretty wide variety of uses, its long enough to not be considered "dated", the chainstays can be short enough to be playful or long enough to provide a bit of stability, and the head tube is steep enough to provide sharp handling at slow speeds in snow, but can slacken up just enough to be well complimented by a 130mm (or maybe 140mm) fork. And to be completely honest I probably don't even ride enough to make much of a valid opinion on what the best geo for a 4 season bike would be.

Probably voids Kona's lifetime warranty to run an angleset, but I forgot to submit that info when I bought it anyway.

On saddle heights, I typically see the opposite. People of all ages riding around with saddles far too low for good pedaling, presumably so they can touch the ground without getting off the saddle.

I understand the draw for someone who isn't so comfortable starting and stopping, or just doing a trackstand . . . I just can't imagine trying to ride like that for any period of time.

Anyone know of any good mtb trails near Arrow Lake and Nakusp, BC? Going to be going on a vacation to a cabin by Arrow Lake and wondering if it would be worth taking my bike. (Sorry for the random interjection in the discussion)

Posted by: Sethsg

Anyone know of any good mtb trails near Arrow Lake and Nakusp, BC? Going to be going on a vacation to a cabin by Arrow Lake and wondering if it would be worth taking my bike. (Sorry for the random interjection in the discussion)

Can't comment on how good they are:

--> https://www.trailforks.com/region/nakusp/

Posted by: eriksg

On saddle heights, I typically see the opposite. People of all ages riding around with saddles far too low for good pedaling, presumably so they can touch the ground without getting off the saddle.

I understand the draw for someone who isn't so comfortable starting and stopping, or just doing a trackstand . . . I just can't imagine trying to ride like that for any period of time.

0.883 is my starting point http://veloptimum.net/Velop/documents/1-choisir/RBR15juil10.htm (as the Lemond method).  I can't believe saddle height isn't more of a topic in mtb.  We obsess about reach to the millimeter but have no idea what our pedalling seat height is.

I've recently switched back to flats after a long stint on clips and have noticed my seat height is about 1/4" to high*.  The fact I haven't dropped my seat is another matter.

* I do my seat height in inches.

Posted by: fartymarty

We obsess about reach to the millimeter but have no idea what our pedalling seat height is.

I think it's really funny when people are so focused on Reach and don't mention Stack. You literally can't know what the Reach number means if you don't also know what the Stack on that bike is. When it comes to saddle height one thing I have learned is I have a max and min saddle height. Not only do I not want the saddle too high for obvious reasons, but I don't want the max drop of my dropper to set the saddle too low. With the new crop of internally adjustable "travel" droppers this isn't too big a concern though.

Vik - For me there are a lot of things that feed into bar height (stack) as it relates to front wheel grip.  As such a simple number doesn't work due to all the factors involved - terrain steepness, rider position, pedal type*, tyre size and type, fork setting, bar roll, bar rise, etc...  * clips allow you to roll your feet forward resulting in more weight on the front wheel cf flats which need a heels down riding style.

Posted by: eriksg

On saddle heights, I typically see the opposite. People of all ages riding around with saddles far too low for good pedaling, presumably so they can touch the ground without getting off the saddle.

That's my experience as well.

Personally I'm super sensitive to saddle height due to a damaged left knee. If my saddle height is off by a few mm the knee injury flares up.

To determine saddle height I use exactly the method that Andrew describes in his blog post (although I think with 30-35 degrees knee bent he probably meant 145-150 degrees?). Any change (new saddle, new shoes, etc.) I redo it.

Since starting yoga 7 years ago I've also been gaining flexibility and have had to adjust my saddle height for it a few times.

Posted by: fartymarty

Vik - For me there are a lot of things that feed into bar height (stack) as it relates to front wheel grip.  As such a simple number doesn't work due to all the factors involved - terrain steepness, rider position, pedal type*, tyre size and type, fork setting, bar roll, bar rise, etc...  * clips allow you to roll your feet forward resulting in more weight on the front wheel cf flats which need a heels down riding style.

I agree with the above ^^^, but my comment was about the fact geo chart Reach is defined by the Stack of the frame [ie. top of HT]. So you can say I like Reach 465mm, but that's meaningless without stating what Stack goes with that. Two bikes with the same Reach and significantly different Stack values can be a whole frame size apart. Hence people getting fixated on Reach alone is silly.

Posted by: niels@nsmb.com

To determine saddle height I use exactly the method that Andrew describes in his blog post (although I think with 30-35 degrees knee bent he probably meant 145-150 degrees?). Any change (new saddle, new shoes, etc.) I redo it.

No, I very clearly meant 30-35°. It's the angle between a straight line drawn through your femur and where it bisects with your tib-fib at the 6 o'clock pedal position. It's not going to make any difference if you'd prefer to measure the larger inside angle (180°-145° = 35°) but the fit systems I've used at work have always relied on the first measurement. 

-----

I find the fastest way to ballpark a new mountain bike is to adjust the saddle for a full extension (straight leg / no knee bend) with the rider's heel on the pedal at bottom dead center (inline with the actual seat tube angle from the BB). I've been setting up new bikes for test rides and sales for riders for twenty years now using this method and it consistently delivers usable results. 

Posted by: eriksg

On saddle heights, I typically see the opposite. People of all ages riding around with saddles far too low for good pedaling, presumably so they can touch the ground without getting off the saddle.

I understand the draw for someone who isn't so comfortable starting and stopping, or just doing a trackstand . . . I just can't imagine trying to ride like that for any period of time.

I don't disagree with your observation if we're talking about road and commuter bikes (even on high-end road bikes I often see riders with saddles much too low). 

I'm surprised if that's your observation of folks riding dropper posts. I can't go for a ride, or a couple of days in the shop, without seeing setups where the dropper post is slammed to the seal-head and clearly extends too long for any range of optimum pedaling height. 

I rarely see riders with dropper posts where their climbing height is on the too-low side of the optimum window for most cyclists. 

Posted by: fartymarty

I can't believe saddle height isn't more of a topic in mtb.  We obsess about reach to the millimeter but have no idea what our pedalling seat height is.

Handlebar width is the one that really shocks me. Especially for riders like myself who went to wider-than-optimal handlebars to work around issues with bike geometry (steep HTA / short Reach / low Stack). But I like to go back to this Richard Cunningham quote:

"To set the record straight, personal preference is reason enough to defend your favorite width. I'm not going to dictate which bar you should ride." (I used it here) 

The fact is the 'right' saddle height range, even on a road bike with all the geometry static, ranges wildly. On a mountain bike with sag, geometry optimized (steeper or slacker STA) for different terrain or to accommodate different frame features (tire clearance, chain stay length) and then flats v. clip-in pedals and where a rider's foot interfaces with the pedals the optimum height is wild. Even whether a rider drops their heels or rides more toe-down can make a notable difference in height. 

And that number, saddle height, is one of the few variables of mountain bike fit that's infinitely adjustable (at least in one direction) so it doesn't really play into most folks purchasing decisions like getting the right Reach/Stack ratio does. Even then between headset spacers and some 3"+ of variable bar rise just in production handlebar options plus stem length, there is a lot more tune-ability than I think most folks consider. Reach is just a simple number to shop.

Strong agree on personal preference weighing more heavily than a lot of people want to admit.

Heck, I find I use different saddle heights across many of my bikes depending (mostly?) on usage. My "gravel" bike has a slightly lower saddle height than my road bike, which is different from the fixed gear, which is different from the etc etc etc. And that puts aside the difference in height between different varieties of pedal/shoe systems.

My general rule is this: I don't comment on people's saddle height- or, for the most part, their riding position- unless I am specifically asked about it. If they're out enjoying themselves riding, I will not, under any circumstances, be the cyclist that starts giving unsolicited advice on the very personal choices they've made on their bike.

Posted by: AndrewMajor

Posted by: niels@nsmb.com

To determine saddle height I use exactly the method that Andrew describes in his blog post (although I think with 30-35 degrees knee bent he probably meant 145-150 degrees?). Any change (new saddle, new shoes, etc.) I redo it.

No, I very clearly meant 30-35°. It's the angle between a straight line drawn through your femur and where it bisects with your tib-fib at the 6 o'clock pedal position. It's not going to make any difference if you'd prefer to measure the larger inside angle (180°-145° = 35°) but the fit systems I've used at work have always relied on the first measurement.

Yes we mean the exact same thing but measured from opposite sides so to speak. I can see yours makes more sense when I think about it, mine is just how I've thought about it intuitively until now.

Carry on ;-)

1. Anybody else notice that a flat pedal rigid fatbike seems to enforce good technique, but not in a try to kill you kind of way?  As in it doesn't really turn without weighting the front and leaning the bike first, but corners aggressively when you do, bit of bounciness with the flats strongly encourages heels down, and the rigid fork plus bounce reminds you to consider you lines when you do something dumb.  I feel like I improve every time I ride the fatty, then get sloppy and lazy after spending time clipped in with suspension.

2.  The fatbike market needs a good tire insert, take some of the fear of bike damage out of drops or coming up short on a jump.

3.  Nobody mentioning that tire in the "Free doesn't mean value" post?  As a guy who came to MTB as a cheaper alternative to race cars, that's a lot worse than worn out.  Yes alignment was off, and it looks chronically under inflated too, but that big flat spot doesn't occur without a tire lockup.  Either ABS no longer works, or somebody has been doing handbrake turns.

Posted by: nothingfuture

My general rule is this: I don't comment on people's saddle height- or, for the most part, their riding position- unless I am specifically asked about it. If they're out enjoying themselves riding, I will not, under any circumstances, be the cyclist that starts giving unsolicited advice on the very personal choices they've made on their bike.

That's ^^ a good approach. I follow that as well. If someone is riding strong and having fun. I don't care what their bike/gear/clothing/technique choices are.  If someone asks and wants to get into the nitty gritty we can grab a post-ride beer and split atoms about bike geek details for hours. If someone is struggling and/or uncomfortable/injured due to easily fixable issues I'll broach the subject unasked, but I'll also STFU if they don't welcome the discussion.