alexdi profile

I have a whole garage of parts. Mostly road bike bits from 2005-2010, the peak of that delightful period when everything was interchangeable and externally-routed. Also have a fascination with vintage drivetrain components. The 'artisanal' years from the 70s to the early 2000s, before everything was computer-optimized, yielded some really beautiful stuff. I'd hang it on a wall before riding it though.

Very interested in this one. More travel than a 'downcountry' XC bike, but without the seeming indifference to weight that adds a pound or three to every other trail frame. And they've managed it with storage, a threaded bottom bracket, and intelligent routing, at a shockingly reasonable frame price. Looking forward to getting a leg over it.

Andrew, that's just it-- it's not the same position. If you actually sketch out where your grips are, you'll find that a configuration that feels different puts them somewhere else. It's not something you can eyeball or guesstimate; as an experienced rider, you'd probably notice a half-centimeter deviation in any direction, and for a bar that tall, just one degree in tilt will move the grips over a centimeter.

> where the stem is clamped in the same spot on the steerer

When you're picturing your bar setup with a stem mounted, imagine drawing extra support lines from your bar clamp to random points on the head tube. None of those lines would change your steering geometry. All of them represent a potential stem (or would, if we pretend you could mount a stem to the hidden parts of your steerer). It does not matter whether your new stem clamps lower or higher if your grip position doesn't change.

Cooper, you've given the same argument twice for a position I don't have. In your example, your hands are not in the same position relative to the steering axis. This is a correct example:

Radical difference in stem length, no difference at all in steering movement (assuming you're in the hoods or the drops for this silly bar). Only the position of your hands relative to the steering axis matters, not how you get there. 

And again, this doesn't just apply to the horizontal axis; you can get identical fit and handling with radically different combinations of bar rise, sweep, stem angle, and spacers.

> But if you think a 30mm stem / 3” rise bar rides the same as 3” of headset spacers, a long stem, and a flat bar

If that long stem was paired with a bar that put the grips in the same position and orientation, there would be no difference. Your hands would move the steerer from the same position, with the same force, over the same arc.

> but you can't just throw a 125mm long stem and high rise bar on a small frame and think it'll be the same as riding a large with with a 50mm.

That isn't what I said.

These stems are 70mm/-20D, 65mm/10D, and 110mm/53D. They will all fit and ride exactly the same.

Bars are no different. Here's Pinkbike comparing a bar that extends forward from the steerer tube to a conventional bar with a 50mm stem:

These two configurations (accounting for the imperfect match) are functionally identical, and this applies equally if you're talking about vertical deviations (bar rise) rather than horizontal.

If we're really boiling things down, the bike size when you're standing is wholly determined by the position of the bottom bracket relative to the bottom of the head tube, and the HTA. Whether the position of the grips comes from a taller head tube, more spacers, up-angled stems, or bar rise makes no difference.

You're not 'preserving' reach by using a high-rise bar. The only thing that matters is the ultimate position of your hands relative to the steering axis. You could have a 300mm or 30mm stem, a riser bar, a flat bar, a long or short headtube-- it makes no difference how the parts are combined if your hands end up in the same place. The bike will handle and feel the same. The advantage of riser bars is that it's hard to find high-rise stems, so if your fork was cut short, they're the only good way to get the grips high enough.

While I'm in favor of the idea of fewer gears, the benefits haven't borne out in practice. Durability? Better with 12S if the chains are any indication. Weight? Dollar for dollar, the same for the same range. Box's CNC 11-50 9S is the same 360g as SRAM's 10-50 12S. Shifting? Better than ever with Hyperglide+, even accounting for the tighter tolerances. I rode an M9100 demo with a broken, floppy shifter adjustment knob that was still better than any other drivetrain I'd experienced before. When you can add or dump a bunch of gears at once, even the argument that you're usually skipping ratios starts to fall flat. 

Friction shifters are cool. I've been on the efficiency bandwagon too long to want to use one though.

Short cranks mean more saddle height. With the pedals level out of the saddle, no matter, but for sit-and-spin, you'll be up higher.

Let's look a little harder at this petition. The author is Renee Hutchens. 

> For her part, Hutchens has been pressing for this change for several years, speaking often to athletes and employees she knows within Yeti’s ranks. She sent a formal letter a year ago, and last week [6/31], she emailed a more personal version of the Change.org petition asking the company to reconsider its branding.

After no response from Yeti, she published the petition on Change.org on 7/6. The only coverage was a lone article on BikeMag that wasn't picked up by anyone. Then Yeti responded on 7/14, creating the leading story on over a dozen high-profile websites.

I'm arguing there wasn't enough press to merit a public response, but if you believe the opposite, it only shows how craven the decision was. They ignored her for years. This wasn't a fit of altruism, it was exactly what I said: a successful attempt to turn a controversy into a marketing coup.

Excellent review, thanks for taking the time! I particularly appreciate the assembly notes.

I've made a worksheet of a potential build that brings the bike just under 27 pounds, though the bigger question is whether to go full-29 or take the plunge to a 69er.* How much flexibility did you have on the color scheme and logos?

• I just realized the 34T thing could be a problem with a 69er. I run 32T with a 29x2.5" and a 10-42. If I downsize to 27.5 in the back, the ring has to come up to 32 to keep the top end. Hmm.