The new long wheelbase bikes and the Shore?

I'm riding an XL and I find on the tight turns I'm already cutting it wide. The wheelbase on my current ride is around 1250mm, the lastest bike are over 1300mm. For those of you that are riding bikes with 1300+mm, how are you finding it riding on the Shore? Is having a steeper seat angle worth it for the climbs vs the long wheelbase?

My XL Geometron Is In the 1340s. It's long for sure. For general riding and 99% of climbing It's a non Issue. A couple of the switchbacks on GSM need some extra precision but they're totally doable. It's also stable as a battleship going downhill - It' still pretty agile and a good match for my higher center of gravity. The steep seat angle Is world changing for me.  Absolutely mandatory from this point forward. For the first time In 30 years I can ride uphill without fighting for position on my bike. I've never had such good climbing ergonomics, let alone on a 34lb monster like this. This Is also the first bike I've had that has a size-appropriate seat tube angle and chainstay length so go figure.

Any Idea why my Is and Ins are getting capitalized?

Navigating geo's getting dicey!

Demo that shit, experience varies. I found that too long a wheelbase and I was a passenger on an intergalactic cruiser.

I don't have anything over 1300 but I also always seem to size down between L and XL. I have been slowly buying bigger bikes and definitely notice the stability at high speeds of the bigger ones. That being said every time I take out my 27.5 wheeled bikes with short reach, I have soooo much fun and to be honest, I'm not really faster on the bigger bikes. I think the bigger bikes are more forgiving and you don't have to work the bike as much, but that does not really make for more fun. In my opinion, the smaller wheelbases and wheels give more options. Sure you can clean everything on a tracktor of a bike but on the smaller bikes you can do the same section of trail 3 different ways. Manual through the dip or off the rock, ride along the root etc etc. The shore offers so many options of how to ride the same trails and a I'm not sure the bigger bikes can take advantage of that. 

That being said, some riders are just trying to survive the shore, others are taking lines I wouldn't, even on my biggest bike. In either case, big bikes may suit their riding goals well.  I don't think the shore has much that can't be negotiated on a big bike these days. Sorry I can't answer your question with first hand experience but based on my experience with increasing wheelbases, there is something to be lost when going bigger that some of the die hard big bike advocates may not mention.

I'm guessing a big percentage of us haven't purchased and ridden the new Geo's? I get climbing and stability are better but a negative in everything else?

I think everything is easier. Gnar is less gnar. Steeps with harsh transitions are less harsh. You can sit up and pedal easily up steeps. But it is bigger, feels bigger and is less agile. I keep worrying that I'm going to stop liking my relatively short wheel base 27.5" bikes but every time I get back on one I smile and remember why I like them so much.

My next test will be my next bike - an XL process 134 with 510 reach. According to everyone on here and pinkbike, I will start to think my other bikes are outdated and prehistoric. I figure I will go out a crush some of my old Strava PR's on segments that involve a lot of pedaling and speed as I think that is what these things do best. I doubt I will prefer it for everything though.

Posted by: Ouch

I'm guessing a big percentage of us haven't purchased and ridden the new Geo's? I get climbing and stability are better but a negative in everything else?

Not It you're taller. Then they just fit right, possibly for the first time. I started on a Transition Sentinel (which barely qualifies) but then a Pole and a Geometron. I recently got hardtail with the same geo as the Geometron but obviously minus the sag and I'm even more happy. For me the Geo pushes Into too-long territory which I guess for me Is around 1355. Up to that point I get the right wheelbase for my high center of gravity.

Posted by: craw

A couple of the switchbacks on GSM need some extra precision but they're totally doable.

How about those three consecutive switchbacks on R&R? I find those much more difficult on long bikes than the ones on GSM.

Posted by: [email protected]

Posted by: craw

A couple of the switchbacks on GSM need some extra precision but they're totally doable.

How about those three consecutive switchbacks on R&R? I find those much more difficult on long bikes than the ones on GSM.

Lol...these are exactly the switchbacks I have in mind when marinating on whether a G1 might be a bit too much...

Posted by: Bushpilot

Posted by: [email protected]

Posted by: craw

A couple of the switchbacks on GSM need some extra precision but they're totally doable.

How about those three consecutive switchbacks on R&R? I find those much more difficult on long bikes than the ones on GSM.

Lol...these are exactly the switchbacks I have in mind when marinating on whether a G1 might be a bit too much...

The ones on GSM are fine. The first couple on R&R are fine. The ones after that are tricky for sure. There Is zero margin for error. I actually put a +1 angleset In my G16 to reclaim some WB and steering precision. +1' makes It a solid 63.2 and tightens the wheelbase by 2cm to a happy 1340. I'll report back after my next trip up R&R. I'm 6'6" so I'm splitting hairs here. I don't want to go any tighter because I want good balance between the wheels for everything else. Those switchbacks are like 1% of my ride and not representative of much else; It's a tricky section for my bike to fit and I just accept that.

I never knew the trail was called R&R. I always thought that was part of the "GSR climb". I thought those were the switchbacks we were talking about. I recognize that terrain like those switchbacks only represent 1% of the ride (as mentioned above) but at the end of the day, there is really only about 1% of any ride that I am likely to put a foot down on. If I had a bike that made those switchbacks almost impossible, I would get frustrated. The question is, if you ride a shorter wheelbase, would you be unable to do some part of the downhill parts? IMO probably not. I think there is a point of diminishing returns for longer wheelbases (unless you are super tall) or riding primarily park or just want to go really really fast - neither of which is the point of shore riding for me.

Totally. There was a thread on FB where Leo from Pole was explaining how these new super long bikes were also good for short people. It was laughable. For some people these bikes provide a useful option. For taller riders, likely the first proper fitting bike they've ever had. 

I make those switchbacks as often as I don't. The bike Isn't the Issue. It's one of the few sections anywhere that every time I approach It I have no Idea If I'm likely to make It. I'd be 1000% less likely to make It on a short wheelbase bike with smaller wheels. That's for sure. Horses for courses. As always.

I think a bikes ability to get around tight switchbacks uphill (or down) has more to do with head angle and trail than wheelbase. I mean wheelbase will have an affect but much less than the front end geometry.

I  bought an XL 29er in June and am finding a lot of the shore, including tight turns, easier. As others have said I think being on the tall side at 6'2" its just having I have a bike that fits me that makes the difference. R&R is still 50/50 despite being a good few cm longer. 

I also recently installed my first set of 800mm bars and now the bike doesn't fit out the door.