New posts

make or break

Feb. 11, 2016, 7:50 p.m.
Posts: 3483
Joined: Nov. 27, 2002

Bikes suck.

Every bike should have an adjustable head angle (1.5 degrees) with the 52mm FSA press cups or similar. With the steepest setting being the designers optimum. Seat angle should also be optimised at this setting.

Every bike should have size specific rear centre or even better the option of +/- 30mm (in 10mm increments) when they ordering.

Every bike's reach should be sized with a 50mm stem to allow shorter torsoed riders to run 30mm and long torsoed guys to run 60mm.

Every AM bike should have 165mm cranks and only large/XL trail bikes should get 170mm.

29" bikes should have the same head angles as 650b.

And if you can't fit a bottle cage on a trail/AM bike it should be thrown into a volcano.

"I do like how you generally bring an open-minded and positive vibe to the threads you participate in"

- Morgman

Feb. 11, 2016, 8:14 p.m.
Posts: 1015
Joined: Nov. 8, 2003

Long reach= floating hearts and sparkly eyes for me. I like a vast command center to roam around in with important buttons and switches and laser sounds.

Short tt= my back, hip, brain [HTML_REMOVED] soul hurts.

+water bottle cage, yes.

https://nsmba.ca/product-category/memberships/

Feb. 12, 2016, 7:55 a.m.
Posts: 5731
Joined: June 24, 2003

For me it is seat tube angle and reach. I can't ride steep seat tube bikes because I have long femurs. And long arms too so I need a long reach so I can use a proper short stem.

Debate? Bikes are made for riding not pushing.

Feb. 12, 2016, 9:32 a.m.
Posts: 5738
Joined: May 28, 2005

For me it is seat tube angle and reach. I can't ride steep seat tube bikes because I have long femurs. And long arms too so I need a long reach so I can use a proper short stem.

whoa, slack sta and long reach… that would add up to a crazy long top tube

what do you ride? yeti's maybe the only brand that i can think of that fits that mold

so when's your geometron arriving?

"Nobody really gives a shit that you don't like the thing that you have no firsthand experience with." Dave

Feb. 12, 2016, 9:47 a.m.
Posts: 4844
Joined: Nov. 25, 2002

so when's your geometron arriving?

i really want to try one of these.

Feb. 12, 2016, 9:54 a.m.
Posts: 1
Joined: Sept. 20, 2006

165mm cranks?

Feb. 12, 2016, 9:56 a.m.
Posts: 3483
Joined: Nov. 27, 2002

If I could afford it I would like a custom Nicolai.

If you read what people want in this thread it's clear people want different things. The only answer is adjustability. Unfortunately the industry is more concerned with things like Boost than sizing/geo.

"I do like how you generally bring an open-minded and positive vibe to the threads you participate in"

- Morgman

Feb. 12, 2016, 10:06 a.m.
Posts: 3483
Joined: Nov. 27, 2002

165mm cranks?

I'd run at least 155 or 160mm on the AM bike if I could. Power output from longer cranks is a myth and may even cause energy consumption. However, keeping your feet closer together allowing more vertical body movement, more even turning ability (ever wonder why you can turn one way better than the other?) and less force on one leg etc.

That's before the ground clearance issue.

"I do like how you generally bring an open-minded and positive vibe to the threads you participate in"

- Morgman

Feb. 12, 2016, 10:24 a.m.
Posts: 8935
Joined: Dec. 23, 2005

Damn now you have me looking at how adjustable I could make a custom frame.

Sliding drops covers the rc.

Adjustable shock mount locations would cover ST and BB. Nobody makes a steel 52mm headtube so I'd need to lean on someone to custom machine one, or use a 44mm angleset.

Feb. 12, 2016, 10:29 a.m.
Posts: 1
Joined: Sept. 20, 2006

I'd run at least 155 or 160mm on the AM bike if I could. Power output from longer cranks is a myth and may even cause energy consumption. However, keeping your feet closer together allowing more vertical body movement, more even turning ability (ever wonder why you can turn one way better than the other?) and less force on one leg etc.

That's before the ground clearance issue.

I'm not overly concerned with power output, but more the size of the circles I'm spinning. Longer cranks feel good when you have longer legs.

Also, everything being equal, a longer lever arm will get you up and over an obstacle much easier. I'm not talking about spinning up something, I'm talking about cranking up a steep technical climb that might require a track stand moment or two. Think up to Value Added or Somewhere Over There. 175mm cranks still have a place on bikes.

Feb. 12, 2016, 11:36 a.m.
Posts: 1172
Joined: Feb. 24, 2017

i have 175 cranks on my 2015 Smuggler; arguably the lowest bb produced. i do smack my pedals a fair bit but have become accustomed to it and adjust and ratchet accordingly. minor issue IMO/E.

Feb. 12, 2016, 11:42 a.m.
Posts: 5738
Joined: May 28, 2005

i have 175 cranks on my 2015 Smuggler; arguably the lowest bb produced.

not the lowest, and the short travel means that it doesn't get nearly as low as bikes like yeti's sb75 or specialized's 650b stumpjumper

bet it feels rad combined with the big wheels tho :)

"Nobody really gives a shit that you don't like the thing that you have no firsthand experience with." Dave

Feb. 12, 2016, 11:49 a.m.
Posts: 296
Joined: Jan. 25, 2011

Longer cranks feel good when you have longer legs.

BUT SCIENCE!!!

Not buying the short crank idea for anything other than road, pure xc or marathon. A minor gain in power that's only accumulated while pedaling long distances isn't worth feeling like I'm riding a kid's bike.

Cornering feel with shorter cranks and vertical body movement is arguable as well - different strokes….

I like my weight more distributed across the wheelbase when coasting/descending or tech handling, more weight to the inside of a corner with the longer cranks up higher in 12 and 6 - ish o'clock and having more leverage towards the downstroke when pedal stomping up tech climbs, too. Pedal strikes are user error…

Feb. 12, 2016, 12:39 p.m.
Posts: 3483
Joined: Nov. 27, 2002

I'm not overly concerned with power output, but more the size of the circles I'm spinning. Longer cranks feel good when you have longer legs.

Also, everything being equal, a longer lever arm will get you up and over an obstacle much easier. I'm not talking about spinning up something, I'm talking about cranking up a steep technical climb that might require a track stand moment or two. Think up to Value Added or Somewhere Over There. 175mm cranks still have a place on bikes.

If you're track standing you may aswell walk. Plus with the extra clearance you might just fit in an extra pedal stroke of two between those tech moves.

If you include my other points it knocks the long crank argument into a cocked hat.

"I do like how you generally bring an open-minded and positive vibe to the threads you participate in"

- Morgman

Feb. 12, 2016, 12:50 p.m.
Posts: 3483
Joined: Nov. 27, 2002

[QUOTE=ol' dirty;2907546]
I like my weight more distributed across the wheelbase when coasting/descending or tech handling, more weight to the inside of a corner with the longer cranks up higher in 12 and 6 - ish o'clock and having more leverage towards the downstroke when pedal stomping up tech climbs, too. Pedal strikes are user error…

You wouldn't have more cornering leverage if the BB was lowered by the same amount the cranks were shortened by…

The argument I've used before is try convincing dirt bike that they should have their feet 350mm apart.

"I do like how you generally bring an open-minded and positive vibe to the threads you participate in"

- Morgman

Forum jump: