All-mountain/light-freeride bike

If I'm biased towards pedaling performance uphill, which do I choose?

specify: technical trail climbing or fire road grinds?

More trail climbing than fire road. I know both bikes may be less than ideal for techy climbs, but they'll feel great compared to the Shore, and I'll still be comfortable on the way down.

I like that the Norco has a travel adjust fork to steepen head angle, but I don't like the less-than-rave reviews that the Marz 55 ata has been receiving. Is the fork any better for '09?

Interesting thing about the seat tube angles is that according to the websites, the Norco has a slightly steeper angle. However, when you actually look at pictures, the Giant looks visibly steeper (for a size L, the Six is 72.1 while the Reign is 72.0)

See if you can take both for a spin…and choose the one that feels best to you. They are both great bikes and no amount of talking about it online can help…just go ride them and buy the one that puts the biggest grin on your face. :) (just make sure the shop sets them up for your weight so you can get a real feel of the bikes).

Another ? - Will the Mavic 719s hold up to the odd beating?

Yes, great wheels!

See if you can take both for a spin…and choose the one that feels best to you. They are both great bikes and no amount of talking about it online can help…just go ride them and buy the one that puts the biggest grin on your face. :) (just make sure the shop sets them up for your weight so you can get a real feel of the bikes).

^^This

In my experience, I like the way the Six climbs more than the ReignX, but everyone will be different.

More trail climbing than fire road.

then unless the six comes with a shock with adjustable propedal or platform, go with the reign. single pivot = better climber, fsr is more active and combined with the slackness and weight of the six, well. . .

then unless the six comes with a shock with adjustable propedal or platform, go with the reign. single pivot = better climber, fsr is more active and combined with the slackness and weight of the six, well. . .

The Six isnt' much heavier than the reign and has very similar geometry, and the reign uses Maestro, it's form of VPP, so it's not single pivot.

The Six isnt' much heavier than the reign and has very similar geometry, and the reign uses Maestro, it's form of VPP, so it's not single pivot.

i wasn't implying that the 6 weighed more.

but i stand corrected wrt maestro not being a single pivot design (heck, when you look at one in profile, it looks like a urt!)

Geometry listed by the websites is similar, but the visual difference in seat tube angle is bugging me. I took the images posted on the first page, added some reference lines and held a clear protractor against the screen and found the Six has a seat tube angle of ~67 degrees, while the Reign appeared to be ~71.5 degrees. I know this is not the most exact method of measuring angles, but at least I came close with the Reign. I'm a long-legged guy and I don't want to be sitting out over the back wheel when the seat is up (which was one of the issues I had when I was climbing on the Shore).

If I can try both bikes this weekend, I need to find someone with the level app on their i-phone so I take some real measurements.

Geometry listed by the websites is similar, but the visual difference in seat tube angle is bugging me. I took the images posted on the first page, added some reference lines and held a clear protractor against the screen and found the Six has a seat tube angle of ~67 degrees, while the Reign appeared to be ~71.5 degrees. I know this is not the most exact method of measuring angles, but at least I came close with the Reign. I'm a long-legged guy and I don't want to be sitting out over the back wheel when the seat is up (which was one of the issues I had when I was climbing on the Shore).

If I can try both bikes this weekend, I need to find someone with the level app on their i-phone so I take some real measurements.

Check and see if the seatposts point to bottom bracket. My understanding of seat tube angle is that it is measured from the BB. The six probably appears to have a slacker angle due to the fact the seatpost points to a point infront of the BB.

The effective angle is probably pretty close to the angle listed on the website.

Geometry listed by the websites is similar, but the visual difference in seat tube angle is bugging me.

seat tube angle listed for the six may be "effective". seat tube angle runs from the seat to the bb. some bike designs (knolly, for instance) run a super slack seat tube to provide more space for the suspension linkage. looking at the six in profile, its seat tube would intersect with the down tube well in front of the bb, so there's something similar going on here.

the problem with effective seat tube angle is that it relates to the seat being at a certain height - the higher you raise the seat, the slacker that angle gets because the post's vector is "slacker" than if the bike had a traditional, full length seat tube that ran straight to the bb. the taller the rider, the more of an issue this is.

so yeah your concern about hanging off the back of the bike is valid, but depends on your climbing style, body type and, in this case, height. being further back on the bike definitely influences power transfer. to quote myself:

A frame's seat tube angle determines the position of a bike's saddle in relation to its bottom bracket. Since the bottom bracket is the axis around which the bike's cranks and pedal rotate, this in turn affects the orientation of the rider's legs and body in relation to the bike. Seat tube angle also influences the distribution of the rider's weight between saddle and handlebar.

A steeper seat tube brings the bike's saddle more into a vertical line with the bottom bracket, thrusts the rider forward into a more aerodynamic riding position, places more of the rider's weight on the handlebars, and puts more demand on the rider's hamstring muscles. Triathlon bikes tend to have steep seat tubes, because they're built almost exclusively for speed and tend to be ridden by people who are strong runners (and therefore have well-developed hamstring muscles).

The shallower the seat tube, the further the bike's seat is pushed behind its bottom bracket. This puts the rider in a less aerodynamic position, but it also puts more demand on the thighs and glutes (which tend to be well developed in cyclists), and places more of the rider's weight on the saddle, thereby increasing rider comfort.

…

A steeper seat tube also allows for a more direct transfer of power through the rider's legs, although a shallow seat tube angle puts the rider in a better position to exert power at low cadence, therefore assisting with seated climbing.

sorry to :nerd: out

Wow, thanks guys, very helpful posts.

As I was reading, I started thinking about this issue even before I realized that you had stated the same:

the problem with effective seat tube angle is that it relates to the seat being at a certain height - the higher you raise the seat, the slacker that angle gets because the post's vector is "slacker" than if the bike had a traditional, full length seat tube that ran straight to the bb. the taller the rider, the more of an issue this is.

I wonder where they are measuring the angle from? If it's from the top of the seat tube, then I'll be reclined when the seats goes up for climbing. Might be time to play with the pictures some more and try to figure out what the angles might be with the seat as high as I'll need.

Don't worry about nerding out, I'm not sure that it gets any worse than drawing vectors on pictures of bikes, and measuring off the screen with protractors. Narrrr! :)

I'm loving this thread - those 2 bikes are on my shortlist as well, although I won't be pulling the trigger for a while yet. Make sure you post your experiences after you ride them, and/or make your decision.

Maybe these are both the wrong bike for you. Perhaps a Norco Fluid or a giant Reign or even TranceX would be a better choice. I bought my ReignX thinking it'd do it all. This was a mistake. Mine's now closing in on 40# with Minions. If you're not able to spend significant amounts after the initial purchase on lightening things up - you're going to be disappointed with either choice. If you're riding in the Okanagan I'd look for a lighter bike period. I just moved from Vernon to Abbotsford so sticking with a heavier bike payed off but if I'd stayed in the interior I'd have went lighter and with a more appropriate geo. I'm getting older though and I'm finally tiring of hauling heavy bikes up the mountain - Climbing is half the ride (more time wise). The right bike is out there, don't be to hasty.

All this being said - I'll still climb anything if I'm alone or with riders willing to slow the pace. It's when your out with a bunch of hammerheads that you pay the price.

Of your 2 choices I'd still take that reign with a pimp wheelset any day.

Have you looked at a Specialized Pitch? Is nice…