lack of water bottle mount.
not even kidding. there's not many current bikes that are so wonky in the number dept that you can't massage things into acceptable territory with anglesets, offset bushings, slamming seats on rails (or even reversing posts, as dumb as it looks), stem swapping or frame upsizing, but if there's no place for a bottle, i have no interest.
Also my only deal breaker.
A wonky seat tube angles kills a bike for me.
i didn't want to be the first to say it, but this might be mine too
I'll throw fork offset into the mix… I had a Revelation on my Whishart hardtail when I first built it up and the bike felt great other than some annoying wheel flop.
hardly sounds like a deal breaker, and easy to remedy: simply swap out the fork (as you did)!
lack of water bottle mount.
also true for me
[QUOTE=ol' dirty;2907392]Also my only deal breaker.[/QUOTE]
you guys are nuts ;)
"Nobody really gives a shit that you don't like the thing that you have no firsthand experience with." Dave
I'll throw fork offset into the mix. People can look at head angle in isolation but it's only part of the issue. I had a Revelation on my Whishart hardtail when I first built it up and the bike felt great other than some annoying wheel flop. I changed the fork out to a Suntour Auron set to the same axle to crown and the handling is completely different. Zero wheel flop but still nice and stable with around 65.5 degree HA.
Similar with my daft old Balfa….Decent steering with an old Manitou Nixon but I swapped the fork out for a nice looking dinosaur of a White Brothers FR3 for a laugh. Again same axle to crown but quite a bit of understeer on corners this time.
Which offsets worked and didn't work?
There's nothing better than an Orangina after cheating death with Digger.
you guys are nuts ;)
can confirm
A frame that MSRP's for $6,000.
If every frame but one was $6,000 I'd easily find a way to like it regardless of everything else.
You end up getting a new Demo this year or what? :)
This for me too, but the opposite. I have long arms and short legs. On some of the older bikes, after a long descent, I would often miss the seat completely and sit down on the tire. As a result, I love the geo on the new bikes!
I never understood why bikes weren't sold based on their top tube length, you can adjust the seat height with the seat post, but adjusting the top tube length by changing stem length also changes the handling.
I never understood why bikes weren't sold based on their top tube length, you can adjust the seat height with the seat post, but adjusting the top tube length by changing stem length also changes the handling.
Do you mean top tube or reach? Because varying either radically changes how a bike can fit.
i.e. An Enduro 29 and a Canfield Riot have similar cockpit lengths but the Riot has more reach (forward) but the E29 has more ETT (back).
There's nothing better than an Orangina after cheating death with Digger.
True, but currently frames are sized off a seat tube length which is virtually meaningless, other than a smaller dimension seat tube likely has a shorter top tube.
I agree position of the top tube length WRT the bottom bracket changes the riders position on the bike, which will change handling.
can confirm
Confirmed.
True, but currently frames are sized off a seat tube length which is virtually meaningless, other than a smaller dimension seat tube likely has a shorter top tube.
I agree position of the top tube length WRT the bottom bracket changes the riders position on the bike, which will change handling.
I'd argue those days are behind us, and frames are sized according to all the variables that makes up a size.
I never understood why bikes weren't sold based on their top tube length, you can adjust the seat height with the seat post, but adjusting the top tube length by changing stem length also changes the handling.
Because top tube length varies wildly with seat angle. Reach and stack are where it's at for primary frame dimensions. Top tube length is way down on the list of the important frame dimensions.
True, but currently frames are sized off a seat tube length which is virtually meaningless, other than a smaller dimension seat tube likely has a shorter top tube.
Road bikes generally are but is this still true for mtbs? I don't take it that an XL frame is based off of the seat tube length anymore. For example, Santa Cruz lists Reach, Stack, and HTA before seat tube length. Sign of the times?
Is reach a BB to (top of) head tube measurement or something?
Edit. I looked it up. I get it now. Looks like a good number to use.
Now I gotta learn new shit if I ever want a new bike again.
I'd argue those days are behind us, and frames are sized according to all the variables that makes up a size.
Looks like RM has moved with the times.
Grabbed a frame geometry chart at somewhat random.
I think most consumers have been trained for a long time to look at STL first when choosing a size. It's going to take some time to get over that psychological hurdle and get the average consumer to pay attention to all key sizing metrics. Personally, I have a range of TTL and Reach that a frame needs to fall into for a frame to fit and I can't ignore one over the other.
Forum jump:
