long travel wagon wheelers

Posted by: robnow

Actually I think we've come to the conclusion that it IS a steep seat tube.  Its been mentioned in a couple spots, I think I heard it in Jeff K-W's YouTube broadcast, that Ibis measured seat tube angle at different extensions depending on frame size, XL was at 810mm, L at 770 I believe.

Have we decided that?  Sure the ESTA is measured to each frame size, that is a start.  The Actual STA on the other hand is not as steep as they claim given the information from the review that was posted here on NSMB.

From Hans Heim, CEO of Ibis: https://www.pinkbike.com/news/first-ride-ibis-ripmo-long-travel-29er.html

I kinda like that...but it's different from the rest of the industry...maybe something they should talk about more in their marketing stuff. Thanks for posting the info Craw!

Posted by: pedalhound

I kinda like that...but it's different from the rest of the industry...maybe something they should talk about more in their marketing stuff. Thanks for posting the info Craw!

All the other frame measurements are standardized except for ESTA. Ideally ESTA would be the angle of the line that passes through the BB center, the back or center of the seat tube and intersects with the Reach line. That would give a size-specific number.

Posted by: craw

Posted by: pedalhound

I kinda like that...but it's different from the rest of the industry...maybe something they should talk about more in their marketing stuff. Thanks for posting the info Craw!

All the other frame measurements are standardized except for ESTA. Ideally ESTA would be the angle of the line that passes through the BB center, the back or center of the seat tube and intersects with the Reach line. That would give a size-specific number.

Why can it not be a line that passes through the centre of the seat tube? If bottom brackets and seat tubes all lined up like they did back in the hardtail days, then drawing a line through the BB would make sense.  Most seat tubes are more or less straight these days, so having to deal with wildy bent or interrupted ones is not really a factor is it?  BBs offset behind the seat tube make for exaggerated ESTAs when measured as you propose above.

Posted by: shoreboy

Posted by: craw

Posted by: pedalhound

I kinda like that...but it's different from the rest of the industry...maybe something they should talk about more in their marketing stuff. Thanks for posting the info Craw!

All the other frame measurements are standardized except for ESTA. Ideally ESTA would be the angle of the line that passes through the BB center, the back or center of the seat tube and intersects with the Reach line. That would give a size-specific number.

Why can it not be a line that passes through the centre of the seat tube? If bottom brackets and seat tubes all lined up like they did back in the hardtail days, then drawing a line through the BB would make sense.  Most seat tubes are more or less straight these days, so having to deal with wildy bent or interrupted ones is not really a factor is it?  BBs offset behind the seat tube make for exaggerated ESTAs when measured as you propose above.

I think I agree. So what if you drew a line from BB center to the center of the seatpost head at 4 different extensions (one for each size, or 6 if the brand makes XS or XXL) and took the angle of that? i.e. not involve the seat tube itself at all. Seeing how wildly those numbers varied would tell you a lot about how the bike fit.

Posted by: craw

Posted by: shoreboy

Posted by: craw

Posted by: pedalhound

I kinda like that...but it's different from the rest of the industry...maybe something they should talk about more in their marketing stuff. Thanks for posting the info Craw!

All the other frame measurements are standardized except for ESTA. Ideally ESTA would be the angle of the line that passes through the BB center, the back or center of the seat tube and intersects with the Reach line. That would give a size-specific number.

Why can it not be a line that passes through the centre of the seat tube? If bottom brackets and seat tubes all lined up like they did back in the hardtail days, then drawing a line through the BB would make sense.  Most seat tubes are more or less straight these days, so having to deal with wildy bent or interrupted ones is not really a factor is it?  BBs offset behind the seat tube make for exaggerated ESTAs when measured as you propose above.

I think I agree. So what if you drew a line from BB center to the center of the seatpost head at 4 different extensions (one for each size, or 6 if the brand makes XS or XXL) and took the angle of that? i.e. not involve the seat tube itself at all. Seeing how wildly those numbers varied would tell you a lot about how the bike fit.

That is an interesting idea too.  It wasnt what I was getting at though.  Take the BB out of it (unless it is inline with the seatpost), and draw a line straight down the seatpost.  Where it intersects with the imaginary horizontal line to the dropout is your STA.  Please let me know if I am missing something, because this seems too obvious to me.

I just finished building this bad boy, 2018 Norco Sight C9.1. Two rides in and it is impressing me a lot. 130mm rear and a 140mm fork. Still playing with bar height but do not let the spacer stack fool you as the head tube is surprisingly short (104 mm). I will banter back and forth as required based on the responses.

XL frame

Fox 36 Factory Fit 4 140 mm with Vorsprung Luftkappe and Fractive Tune

Fox DPX2 rear shock

Shimano XTR M9020 crankset w Stages power meter

OneUp Components 30T Oval and Chain bash

e*thirteen TRS+ 9-46T 11 speed cassette

e*thirteen TRSr carbon 31 mmm wheelset w DT240 hubset

KMC XSL11-TiN chain

9point8 Fall line dropper 175mm w Digit Remote

XTR M9050 Di2 GS RD w M9050 RH Shifter and M9051 Controller

PRO Tharsis Di2 Carbon handle bar (780 mm)

PRO Tharsis Di2 Stem 45mm (0º rise)

Ergon GE1 Slim grips and SME3 Pro Carbon Saddle

XTR M9000 levers w Saint M820 callipers & metallic pads

Interesting.  Some sort of overseas carbon frame?  Looks alot like a Trek with a Horst Link rear triangle.

2018 Norco Sight C9.1 but I have removed a lot of the OE build parts (everything SRAM) and added everything that I prefer to run.

That Norco is sick, really like the build (I'm a Shimano/Fox fan so it suits me well). Well thought out all around.

Posted by: Endur-Bro

I'm ~175cm and on a MOJO G16 29

Mojo G16 as a 29 gets my vote as well.  It's a very versatile frame and have read it is best run 29F 275R but can do either full 275 or 29 with some adjustment.

Love the Murmur.  I was on the waiting list for one but didn't have the cash....

You can also run them as 120mm rear which appeals more than 145mm now due to the local terrain in SE UK.

Posted by: fartymarty

Posted by: Endur-Bro

I'm ~175cm and on a MOJO G16 29

Mojo G16 as a 29 gets my vote as well. It's a very versatile frame and have read it is best run 29F 275R but can do either full 275 or 29 with some adjustment.

I've heard the same. For myself I just need to source a BOOST 650b rear wheel and I'd be setup for that. I'd really be interested in running it as a 650b+ rear wheel if possible. I do have two offset bushings in my shock now.

Can be run in 650b/29 wheel sizes. 155/175mm rear wheel travel and forked from 160-180mm front travel.  Very versatile frame indeed.