Who thought pinkbike would sing the praises of a 72 degree seatube angle?

https://youtu.be/SXTW-40jhEc

I enjoy watching the field tests. They continuously sing the praises of progressive geometry and steep STAs. Then they review this xc rig and can't stop talking about how much better it climbs than any of the "progressive" bikes. They keep saying how it just wants to go fast and invites you to pedal harder. Then they talk about how after riding it, they feel like they are too upright on the progressive bikes. You can actually see the difference in the videos of how much faster they are climbing on the xc geo, it's pretty obvious.

I'm not sure how they can deal with the cognitive dissonance of saying how great short ett and steep sta is in one video and the opposite in this one.

Bikes intended design? ¯\(ツ)/¯ 

Are high level XC racers ever not attacking a climb? Slacker STA will keep it out of the way. 

XC racers likely spend more time on a road bike than any other racer. So it makes sense to carry Some Geo over to the dirt

It’s not about carrying the gel over - road bikes use that gel because it is more efficient and faster.

Yeah, they said that about the BMC but also compare all the bikes to descending on the Growler. 

Like anything on a bike it's a compromise. If climbs are your thing, the BMC would shine. If descents are I bet the Growler is the winner. 

If anything, I consider it a win that we have so many options that we can basically choose a geo or intended use and find a bike that fits our trails and skills.

I agree with all of you. I just find it amazing that they can pound the steep sta drum so loud and push "progressive geometry" as the be all and end all and then when they get on a completely traditional bike with a slightly slack head tube the two of them can't stop talking about how well it climbs. Don't they remember slagging all kinds of bikes for not having made the seat tube angle steep enough? It's like they totally forgot what they have said in every review for the past 3 years.

The only way it makes sense is either xc bike geometry really does climb better or pinkbike is just helping their sponsors sell bikes. I mean, if the xc bike doesn't climb better, what does it do well?

You can tell they really don't like many of the value bikes. I am pretty sure when they say "if all you want is to go out and have fun, this bike will be perfect" it I code for "if you don't know shit about bikes and you just want to ride with the cool kids, this bike will let you do that for as little $ as possible"

Less expensive bikes don’t generate as much profit for the industry. 

Also pretty certain PB was shit talking steep STA bikes like MOJO/Nicolai, Pole, Kona, Rocky et before they collectively decided steep STA were cool/good 

FYI my G16 29er is a better texh climber than my Gen 1 Surface. ¯\(ツ)/¯

I think it's got to all be viewed as a system. XC hardtails / 100mm bikes are not 160/70mm bikes, so the height at the front, dynamic sag etc is all vastly different. XC bikes are races bikes, so you can see how compromises are made. 

A steep seat angle on a 170mm bike is a vastly different proposition to on a HT, even before you take in to account the intended use. Many of the XC bikes also have steeper actual seat angle (rather than effective) so the seat angle at a given post height is actually going to end up much more similar than the numbers suggest.

Posted by: Endur-Bro

Less expensive bikes don’t generate as much profit for the industry.

I think it's more profit from less expensive. (but more work!)

Last time I was slingin' bikes, we sold way more Rockhoppers and Blasts than Stumpy Pros. Each brand and selling market surely has their sweet spot of price/profit margin/effort required to sell, but to the general public that isn't nitpicking a degree or two in geometry, price is a major factor.