your frame is crap

what you say makes sense. but the difference is very slight. its the same tube set for a hand full of sizes, cut to different length. who ever told me that may have simplified the process for my simple brain. not to be a name dropper but it was one of those guys who in charge of the production of these bikes. I can't off the top of my head remember which one, tallish, late 30's early 40's, balding, rides a bike, you know, they are all sort of the same.

I've personally designed and built frames for riders up to 6'8" tall and there are no restrictions on geometry. Some tubesets from a Easton were only available in some lengths so we had to choose others but it was never an issue. Long reach, short reach, long seat tube, short seat tube, it really didn't matter. And this was low volume stuff so with higher volume you can have the tubes manufactured however you want. The choice to make goofy geometry in larger sizes is purely a choice.

DrewM…the goats are giving the finger again to the industry.

http://www.bikerumor.com/2015/01/12/gevenalle-adds-gx-drop-bar-shifters-for-shimano-10-speed-mtb-derailleurs-first-look-actual-weights/

http://www.gevenalle.com/store/products/gx-version/

what you say makes sense. but the difference is very slight. its the same tube set for a hand full of sizes, cut to different length.

"very slight" is subjective.. top tubes 20-30mm difference per size, seat tubes maybe 15-35mm difference per size, then obviously the down tubes and head tubes will also be different lengths as well to accommodate.

So what you're saying is that because the tubes are cut to different lengths for each respective size, the front triangles are actually NOT all the same right?

http://www.bikerumor.com/2015/03/12/new-2016-fox-34-float-27-5-goes-wide-to-fit-plus-sized-mountain-bike-tires/

New Fox 34 sporting 15x110.

http://www.bikerumor.com/2015/03/12/new-2016-fox-34-float-27-5-goes-wide-to-fit-plus-sized-mountain-bike-tires/

New Fox 34 sporting 15x110.

I'll see your wimpy 15x110 fork and raise you a 15x150 fork. (unfortunately, it is only a 32mm stanchion so the Fox has that beat)

Well, that's good news for me. It means I'll really have to keep my 26inch Enduro, which I really love, until the dust settles and the industry/the market decides which wheel size is really here to stay.

I do get the concept, wide and light probably feels really good on a 150/160mm bike with short enough geometry. Great pinch flat resistance, good rollover, floatation etc.

But as a consumer there's no way I'll splash big dollars for a carbon rocket with industry standards all over which might be obsolete in the next model season.

I used to be an early adopter. Tried lots of bling stuff in my bike shop days. Had to send in a lot for warranty, but always had the fresh stuff.

My tricked out Carbon Enduro really spoiled me - it is light and mighty durable. So I'd want something at least as light AND durable. And because I bought it at the end of its 26" product life cycle it also is really refined.
Everything on it is dialed. But I probably couldn't use anything short of the brakes and the saddle on my next bike as a carry over.
Rims are the wrong size and width, hubs will probably be too 15x110, 148boost rear, high rise bar won't work, shock and fork nope…

Of course I knew that 26 was already kind of a dinosaur, but I really didn't expect it to fade so fast in the LBS shelves. At least over here in Germany, if you want some decent tires in the good compounds or a wheel set etc. you will have to special order it.
That's really bad for the local dealers, they can NOT stock all the special stuff and variants anymore, there's so many different standards.

I don't get how anyone makes profit. So many R and D costs, stocking, tooling etc.
Slow the product cycles, produce in bigger numbers and sell all of your produced goods?

Modern Enduro bikes are FANTASTIC, they are so versatile, it is mind boggling. But customers are starting to delay their purchases, because they are more and more confused. Spending 8000$ on a bike won't even buy them two seasons of state of the art.

Of course you can say: however long it works for you it will be a great bike. While that's true, I believe there's a tipping point where even pretty laid back customers will feel hosed?

I do have more money to spend on bikes than a couple of years ago, yet I find myself just riding more and more and care less about my equipment. (I'm still a gear whore, but I regularly wear out parts now, not because they are weak, but because I ride a lot.) and then I replace them because I have to, rather than because I want to buy something new, just for the heck of it.

Getting really tired of all the new standards getting stuffed down our throats. Time to avoid all the white noise and just ride what u got.

I haven't bought a new bike in 7-8 years and not planing to anytime soon. The used market is awesome! I don't buy new cars either…

I haven't bought a new bike in 7-8 years and not planing to anytime soon. The used market is awesome! I don't buy new cars either…

Here here, New is for chumps!

Just measured my Pike 29" brace and its got 3.25" tire clearance. Fine for 2.8" tires.

The Trek Remedy 29" that was on Pinkbike. Boost 148mm was required to increase wheel stiffness then they put a 24H wheel on it.

20x110mm axles used to be common, I remember when 15x100mm came along SRAM said that the 20x110mm had a better strength to weight ratio. Anyway we got that crap and we're going to get 15x110mm on the new shitfox 34.

The bullshit is overwhelming.

"very slight" is subjective.. top tubes 20-30mm difference per size, seat tubes maybe 15-35mm difference per size, then obviously the down tubes and head tubes will also be different lengths as well to accommodate.

So what you're saying is that because the tubes are cut to different lengths for each respective size, the front triangles are actually NOT all the same right?

I am not going to claim I know what I am talking about, but.. I would wager that us you measured the distance from the upper pivot point on the seat tube of a kona or a norco… to the junction of the top tube the distance would remain consistent though a number if Frame sizes. the head tube and axle to crown high also remain consistent. would that not indicate one jig manufacturing process. I don't know maybe I am wrong.

I am not going to claim I know what I am talking about, but.. I would wager that us you measured the distance from the upper pivot point on the seat tube of a kona or a norco… to the junction of the top tube the distance would remain consistent though a number if Frame sizes. the head tube and axle to crown high also remain consistent. would that not indicate one jig manufacturing process. I don't know maybe I am wrong.

Not correct at all. Every tube is a different length on a front triangle except maybe the headtube which sometimes remains the same from one size to the next but never across more than two frame sizes. I guarantee that there is not a frame manufacturer in the world that uses the same jig setup on any different frame size. They might use the same jig but it will be adjustable for different frame sizes.

I'm not sure what you're missing here. An XL frame would be ridiculous with the same standover and headtube as a S frame. And even if they did use the same standover and head tube size you'd still need a different jig setup to accommodate the longer tubes and different joint angles.

Bogey. here is something i don't understand despite trying to get my head around it. maybe you can 'splain me. take 2 frames (real frames/measurements, not hypothetical) with nearly identical top tube and seat tube dimensions (74/74.5 EST and 650/647 ETT) measurements. now the first bike has a reach of 465mm and the second bike 483mm. how can this be? how can the seat tube angles, effective, and then the top tube effective be nearly identical, and their be so much difference in the reach dimension? for the record the first bike has a WB of 1201 the second 1217 and is a degree slacker. norco shinobi/transition smuggler
most perplexing!

Bogey. here is something i don't understand despite trying to get my head around it. maybe you can 'splain me. take 2 frames (real frames/measurements, not hypothetical) with nearly identical top tube and seat tube dimensions (74/74.5 EST and 650/647 ETT) measurements. now the first bike has a reach of 465mm and the second bike 483mm. how can this be? how can the seat tube angles, effective, and then the top tube effective be nearly identical, and their be so much difference in the reach dimension? for the record the first bike has a WB of 1201 the second 1217 and is a degree slacker. norco shinobi/transition smuggler
most perplexing!

Those funny dimensions are all about the seat tube geo. The Shinobi has a straight or nearly straight seat tube whereas the Smuggler has a highly curved seat tube. On a bike with a straight seat tube the effective STA is the same as the actual STA no matter what your saddle height is. With a curved seat tube the effective STA is only the same as the actual STA at one point (measured at a horizontal line projected from the top center of the head tube). Along with this, if you project the seat tube downwards (ignoring the curve) it will not intersect the center of the bottom bracket.

In the real world the actual STA will be more like 68 degrees and the ETT will look artificially short because the seat tube is offset forward to compensate for this slack seat tube. If it wasn't offset forward then you'd have an unrideabley slack actual seat tube angle when your saddle is up.

This was a big problem for me on my E29. Because of the big curve and forward offset of the seat tube, I couldn't get my saddle to a true 73 deg STA which I prefer. On top of this, when I dropped the saddle it moved so far forward that it was just gone and I couldnt stabilize the bike with my thighs as I'm used to. My Nomad3 has much less curve to the seat tube so everything falls right where I want it.