NSMB Pokes The Bear

I think this article should have been titled:

NSMB points out a bear over there.

It's not like you've said it's better than every Specialized bike you've ever ridden - including the 29rs. That would be poking the bear.

zing.

Nothing can ever ride better than a Special Ed on NSMB.

i think the bike looks cool. agreed that much can be done with geometry, and has in the last few years. anyone who has been around bikes for longer that a couple of years will know that change is constant. its a good thing. bring back biopace shimano!

i think the bike looks cool. agreed that much can be done with geometry, and has in the last few years. anyone who has been around bikes for longer that a couple of years will know that change is constant. its a good thing. bring back biopace shimano!

Here you go!

http://www.rotorbikeusa.com/products/qrings_standard.html

well well. I have to add my 12cents.
First 6 cents, go with the concept that 5 years ago we were thinking 50mm stems were damn short, and most of us had a 70-90. 10 years ago it was 120mm. You see where I am going with that? yep.
Second, now remember the last time you went over the bars? Was it steep? Technical? One thing that the zero or 10mm will do for you is move that over the bar point back on the steeps. Its strange to comprehend that the increase in wheelbase here would be a negative for technical, but with the fact that going down you do have a better position over the front wheel, you are thus more capable. builttoride would be correct if we always rode flat, but we go down. Going up, might take some getting used to… that I can't comment about that. My Scratch also took some getting used to riding up which is almost the counter geometry to this mondraker….
ride on:-)

oh ja, about the higher rise zero stem, that is required to keep the handlebar at the same height for the rider. just think about it….. move the exact same fork forward 60mm, it would be lower if you use the 0mm with no stack…. thus they add some rise which then makes it the same as before with the 50mm 6deg rise stem. Its a couple cm's difference if you don't do it.

If stack height was a problem, we'd see them running low rise bars. The fact they're running higher risers suggests it's not too much of a problem?

In any case, until we know the overall geo it's hard to compare against existing bikes. There are folk running quite slack head angles on trail bikes. Part of this is to achieve the benefits of a longer wheelbase. I'm guessing that if these bikes end up with similar wheelbases to slacked out trail bikes, but with a slightly steeper head angle, they may in fact turn better?

Is no one going to mention anything about the skidding? Or is that so 2009?

technically it makes sense - just look where the handlebars are located on a motocross bike…would like to try it. and yes it looks ugly, but I am sure design will evolve over time

Is no one going to mention anything about the skidding? Or is that so 2009?

I thought about it….

I don't know about it, until you try you can't say for sure. BUT it looks like it's geared more for the DH side of things. Sure on a dirt bike it makes sense but you don't need to pedal those. As far as design evolution, we've been ride road bikes for a very long time and MTB are really not that different (unless your talking about DH bikes but that a different story) I'm not sold yet.

I have to disagree with their claims of better weighting the front wheel. The longer front center results ina weight distribution that is closer to the rear wheel than the front… so front wheel weighting is actually reduced for same cockpit geometry. If also taking into acount the higher stack height, then this further moves your weight back. So personally I would say that was a false advertising claim.

Yeah this is where I call BS, at least for AM riding. Shorten the stem and raise the bars, put the rider's weight further back on the climbs, makes the front wheel wander more. The way around that (not counting changing body position) is to steepen the headtube angle, which is something the bike community has pretty much said is unacceptable. Maybe they've addressed this somewhere else in the frame design, but honestly it seems like marketing drivel.

Yeah this is where I call BS, at least for AM riding. Shorten the stem and raise the bars, put the rider's weight further back on the climbs, makes the front wheel wander more. The way around that (not counting changing body position) is to steepen the headtube angle, which is something the bike community has pretty much said is unacceptable. Maybe they've addressed this somewhere else in the frame design, but honestly it seems like marketing drivel.

I agree, having the head tube farther forward and a slack head tube angle makes handling on a steep climb worse. Longer chain stays to compensate this? I bet Fabien wouldn't have trouble climbing Stelvio on a Summum with 40's…

Fabien Barel has been messing with this geometry stuff since his Kona days. There was an article back then written in Dirt mag about all the testing of different geos for the Kona. The main thing they found was that the rider was in the best position when they were in the centre of the bike. Head angles weren't as important as get that centred position on the bike. My guess is that is what they are going for with this new geometry. Get you in the centre of the bike. They didn't touch on it but I wonder if the seat tube is less angled as well to get you in the centre of the bike. It'd be really interesting to compare two Foxy's, 2012 and 2013 to really see if there is a difference.

I don't know how you guys all missed it - that bike totally looks like a Trek.

:D