NSMB - 2015 – Mountain Bike Thread (full suspension)

XL Frame for the research on reaches

Care to share findings/feelins?

My frame is about 1205mm WB, I've found the upper limit for me. The would land it between a L and XL compared to the Newmad. It's too long for me, especially with a 50mm stem.

The next one I'll be going for 5-10mm shorter RC and lop 15-20mm off the FC. Bit steeper SA to shorten up the saddle to bar.

It crushes a straight line chunder, but a chore in the tight. Want to get some playfulness in the next and don't think I'll give up much by shortening it up.

Too long wheelbase, reach, or ETT?

The XL Altitude was a good experiment for me in all three departments but not a home run. I can't share much but I will say that riding the current LG and XL Altitudes was a good bracketing exercise to research where our geo needs to evolve.

1195 WB was not unmanageable on the shore and there was a learning curve on the first few goes.

i'm interested in the new geo as well. doing a chris porter lite build - sizing up to an xl frame, dropping to 35-40mm stem, kicking the h/a out sub 65, pushing a near 48" wb. it's a logical progression; curious where we'll end up in a few years.

It crushes a straight line chunder, but a chore in the tight. Want to get some playfulness in the next and don't think I'll give up much by shortening it up.

are you still running your old talas 36 on there b? i wonder if you might be able to claw back some maneuverability and playfulness with a modern/high offset fork

I overshot on all three.

Felt like I had to move a long ways over the front to keep it weighted, I didn't feel centred on the bike.

Long seated climbing felt good to be stretched out, last couple bikes have been medium and I likely should have been large.

With it being so long the front didn't come up easy on stuff to be playful. Someone talled would likely leverage it up easier.

So snip some out the RC, bring the HA back from 65 to 66, then fine tune the reach. I think 1180ish wb should be good for me.

are you still running your old talas 36 on there b? i wonder if you might be able to claw back some maneuverability and playfulness with a modern/high offset fork

Yes. That will also get replaced with a proper 650 fork instead of running 650 wheel in my older 36.

The fun part of building my own frames is I can draw out something and built it. After reading the Chris Porter stuff I thought really long would be good. For all out EWS race speed the long bike would likely win, for fun playful after work rides it has some drawbacks.

i'm interested in the new geo as well. doing a chris porter lite build - sizing up to an xl frame, dropping to 35-40mm stem, kicking the h/a out sub 65, pushing a near 48" wb. it's a logical progression; curious where we'll end up in a few years.

In terms of stability at high speeds, a slack HA or a long reach will achieve the same feel. I'd pick one but not both if long WBs are a problem, which around here they are.

you'd think so. riding a transition patrol changed my perspective a bit - 1210 wb, 457 reach, [HTML_REMOVED] 65 ha, yet was an absolute blast on the fromme circuit i rode. confidence inspiring, yet surprisingly nimble. really well sorted. would love to try a reign as well; similar numbers.

you'd think so. riding a transition patrol changed my perspective a bit - 1210 wb, 457 reach, [HTML_REMOVED] 65 ha, yet was an absolute blast on the fromme circuit i rode. confidence inspiring, yet surprisingly nimble. really well sorted. would love to try a reign as well; similar numbers.

Yet the Kona Process 134 with its long reach but 68 deg HA opened my eyes to what a bike with such a steep HA can do. It's stable and intuitive, yet I've gained quick steering and playfulness compared to my slacker previous bike.

Those long and slack bikes must just demolish everything in their path. The fact that they've been able to make them handle reasonably quickly in tight spots (from what I've read) is remarkable.

would love to try a reign as well; similar numbers.

ish. longer cs, slacker sta, longer tt to compensate and still get that "enduro feel". by the numbers, the patrol has it beat

(oh and i like how giant has decided that reach and stack numbers, like weight, are "not aplicable" to their bikes :lol:)

in theory/on principle i realize that you should judge how a bike will ride by its geometry numbers; in practice, if you know what you're looking for/at, my experience suggests the numbers don't lie

bryan i'm very interested in follow the evolution of your thinking as you build new frames. i'm hoping to swing a leg over a bike in a month or so that will allow me to throw some bike geo axioms into a fiery crucible :)

^ Or BB heights

I must be one of the few not excited by longer reaches/FC….my back can't handle being stretched out after my previous back injuries and I definitely prefer sitting more upright.

^offset by shorter stems and a bit higher bar height (more or less). not really stretching the cockpit as much as extending the wheelbase. being able to ride with more centrally positioned weight distribution (as opposed to having to hang off the back to avoid stuffing a short/steep front end). in the theater of MY mind, anyways.

^offset by shorter stems and a bit higher bar height (more or less). not really stretching the cockpit as much as extending the wheelbase. being able to ride with more centrally positioned weight distribution (as opposed to having to hang off the back to avoid stuffing a short/steep front end). in the theater of MY mind, anyways.

I already run 'short' stems, 50mm max on my personal bikes for the past 4 years or so.