cyclotoine profile

Bar, like rear center, should be proportional. Most make them in one width with a flex profile to match. When you cut them they become stiffer and assuming the rider is smaller and lighter that is an unfortunate compromise. They should come in more widths to begin with. Being tall, most XLs could be longer still for me and I could probably ride 820 mm bars. I have 780 and 800 on my main bikes now and both feel fine. I notice the difference when I move from one to the other buy there isn't much adaptation. 760 would definitely feel too narrow. My Partner has my old 740mm full width Easton Haven's on her bike. The first thing I did when it arrived with 800mm stock bars was swap to a shorter stem and bars.

I live in a dry climate with several trips to the BC coast each year. After every ride I wipe and brush and then lube and wipe. My last 3 bikes have all been sold with the original cassette and a new or newish chain and were running just fine with life left. I realize that if I lived on the coast I might not be so lucky, but modern cassettes last and last. I have GX eagle cassettes on two bikes.

Alex D, that spreadsheet is nice for someone trying to get seated fit I guess, but it doesn't help someone calculate the effective seat tube angle. I only care about figuring out REAL effective seat tube angles at actual saddle height. It's not easy with the information given by most brands.

Someone give Banshee an award for their new geo charts! Transition should also be applauded for reporting it at an assumed seat height (but it would be nice if they also published what that height is*). Most brands just report it at stack height which isn't very helpful. It also makes them look progressive (ahem, looking at you santa cruz) when in reality they are still on the conservative side. 

*Transition was happy to provide it by email.

My point is that many brands reporting an effective seat tube angle of 75-76 are reporting it at stack height while the actual seat tube angle is making the effective slacker than reported at real saddle heights. 

So for me, at 835mm of saddle height, I'm slacker than the "effective" most brands are claiming. At my seat height, the effective seat angle of the highlander is actually 76 degrees, whereas on most brands it is slacker than 76. So for a tall dude, that's pretty exciting.

I tried to build a calculator for STA when Effective seat angle at two different stack heights are known. My methods are flawed but...

at 835 mm seat height, a Hightower is around 74.5 degrees, a yeti SB 150 is around 75.5. These bikes both report and effective STA in the XL(or XXL) as steeper than 76 degrees, but they're both slacker than the Highlander. Can you see why I am stoked about the actual seat tube angle being the effective?

EXACTLY! (the sarcasm doesn't come through the internet) seriously though some of the actual seat tube angles out there are absurd. Look at niner or canyon. If you're tall those bikes will put you way out back. Have the seat tube actually inline is a super nice hard tail (I originally considered some sort of "the way all other bikes have been made for 100 years or something" since this is mostly a FS/modern mtb thing (i'm not a fan of kinked tube hardtails either). The short chainstay fad is partially to blame for this phenomenon as you can see longer travel 29ers sometimes get very slack in the actual, it's aweful. Thankfully short chainstays are going out of style!

Standard 44/56 I believe. Same as my sentinel. I actually have a 1 degree on my work bench now going into the sentinel to steepen it to 65 for a fun experiment so see if it makes it a little more fun on mellower trails.

Is the Actual and Effective Seat Tube angle THE SAME!? It sure looks it, what a novel concept! I wish more MTBs could be made this way. If it is, the Effective STA for tall riders will be up there with the best of them since most drop below 76 degrees at full extension for tall riders making this an attractive option.

Looking forward to riding impressions. I'd personally choose the Pro version as I think it's better value. Though in 2019 it would have been the pro race for sure. I was thoroughly impressed with packaging and attention to detail when I built up my partners Jeffsy in 2018. The little rubber entry/exit grommets do not stay in place so hopefully the updated ones work better. The nice thing about the head angle being a little off the mark is that it's easily changed by up to 2 degrees with an angleset. Want to keep that steep 77.5 seat tube (yes!) and have a 64.5 degree head angle? No problem, pop a 2 degree angleset in there and you have something that goes toe to toe with the most progressive enduro bikes from the big brands including longer chainstays on the bigger frames. The Jeffsy is still on my short list. As you pointed out the XXL compares with most brands XL, it's a bonus that they have more sizing choice!

Just want to say I was stoked to see this review forthcoming. I'm similar in height to AJ (1cm taller I think) and similarly apey. I'm about 25 lbs heavier (damn dude, you are roadie svelt!). 

Anyway, the sight is the most exciting new bike from a major brand for me. The only other bikes that have me interested are those from Privateer, Pole, Nicoli etc... european brands pushing the geometry envelope. Currently, I'm on an XXL sentinel and it doesn't climb the best. The geometry numbers of these two bikes are very similar with identical reach, head angle and fork offset, but norco pushes the rider further forward (17mm shorter ETT!!!) and extends the chainstays by 10mm. I think this will translate into better climbing traction for tall individuals and I wonder if the further forward position will also make it feel a little more spirited on the climbs. The sentinel can feel bogged down if your shock PSI is not at the higher end of the scale, which has the trade off a bit less planted and stable on the downs. My XL Pole Taiga fatbike has 470mm chainstays and the traction is otherworldly coming off the conventional XC fatbike geometry. This has me convinced that longer chainstays are going to improve climbing for taller riders. My other data point for the benefits of longer chainstays for taller riders is going from a 2015 XXL Instinct BC edition to a 2018 XL Instinct the chainstays got significantly shorter (452mm RC to 436mm) and the 2018 was a far less stable downhill smasher than the 2015 was even though travel numbers and front center numbers were similar.

The side knobs looks like they are already disintegrating in the close up photo. That was my experience with the vigilante I ran for about 8 days of riding in Sedona (yes Sedona is super hard on tires), but I can easily get a season out of a maxxis tire without the knobs decaying like that. Since I can see the decay in your photo I'm still going to look elsewhere, but it maybe that's the cost of performance. I don't know. I'm curious to try some of the new Vittoria offerings.

pretty much agree with everything craw says. and while I am riding 75+ degree ST angle bike now, my next bike will be a Pole, because I want it steeper. My partner really appreciated the climbing benefits when she went from a 73 degree ST trail bike to a 75 and she is a hair under 5'8". So maybe 75-76 is good for average sized riders and it needs to be adjusted from there.

I think Forbidden is a great example of where the industry is going. Riders want more choice and we will increasingly see these small brands eat away at the custom and big brand market because they will offer bikes that have semi-custom geometry off the shelf with different seat tube angles and rear centers in each size. It means some bikes will get even more expensive, but we have seen that people are willing to pay for it. I would take a size-specific geometry alloy bike (Pole just happens to be making what I think will work best for me at 192cm) with a nice GX build over a carbon superbike any day (and then put really nice carbon wheels on it). That is what is going to be the best performance to cost ratio for me.

So I think we're going to see more of what Forbidden is going in terms of geometry offerings.

I also think tire damping is a thing and we will see more tire companies launching their ideas for it in the next few years. I think there is likely a lighter way to incorporate damping into the tire and that will be the way it goes, but we'll see.

I also think we reached peak hardtail popularity and it will not begin declining in popularity but always maintain a low-level market share.

Posted by: bmak

Anyone ridden the new Instinct?

I guess you mean BC edition since this is a long travel thread, but yeah I am riding the new A70 and I think it is a great value. As a super tall dude I wish it had more reach, but it's not bad with a 60mm stem and a bit of rise. I had a 2015 BC edition previously which was a great bike, the new bike is way nicer. Climbs better and more fun/agile than the old bike. I won't comment on the suspension since I went from XFusion -which was great for the price point- to Fox performance elite and of course it's way better in every aspect. 

Posted by: craw

I'm 6'6" and tried 180s for a while. I liked the way they rode but the clearance issues were enough that I switched back to 175. 170 just felt too small. 175 is a good compromise for me.

Damn! What do you ride at that height? I would think almost all production frames are really too small for you?

I'm 6'3.5" and most XL bikes are not big enough for me. We still have a ways to go on reach. I need it longer. Pedal strikes keep me from riding longer cranks but I would not give up 175 mm cranks. I run 185 mm cranks on my monster cross and 180 mm on my other two road bikes. I have 180 mm cranks for touring too. I love the power of the longer leaver and at my height I don't have to worry about closing out my knee angle on the top of the stoke, it's just a non-issue. 

So it comes down to personal preference. I see everyone here has a full range of preference.

Fixed gear I have run 165 mm but prefer 170 mm and I have run 172.5 and 170 mm on the boards. I even have 177.5 mm cranks on one vintage road bike.

I have the Dainese trail skins, the first ones. The second ones look like they address my only grip with the originals in that they are more formed to the knee cap. They stay in place. have side protection, move well and aren't irritating, but the fit it a little awkward as they are not cupped enough to fit nicely on the knee. I would recommend them and figure the new ones are the way to go if you can find them. I live in the North so I pretty much have to buy online anyway since local options are extremely limited.

Pretty happy with my riders thorn anti-fog photochromatic glasses. They're a bit big but the anti-fog really works and I can't live without photochromatic lenses anymore. I lost pair of specialized berm's which were photo chromatic last winter on a back country ski trip. I was super bummed. Those were my favorite all time MTB glasses.

My partner road a giant dropper on her 2014 trance for three seasons. Never serviced, worked like a charm and sold the bike this spring (the black stanchion one). My friend had the older version with a gold stanchion and it wore out. Some people clamp their post too tight and damage their droppers. I did it with my first X fusion and didn't make the same mistake twice. My partner got a new trance this year with another giant dropper and I hope it holds up as good as the old one. I like the performance of my Xfusion better but it does need more frequent service.

Posted by: mrock

Posted by: shoreboy

Ordered about $500 of parts and apparel from them on Apr 3rd.  Shipped out Apr 4th, delivered in Vancouver Apr 8th.  I always choose the Canada Post option.  I got charged $9.95 handling and another ~$22 in taxes (which is lower than what it should have been).  Fast and cheap, no complaints at all here.

I'm at 18 working days now, and nothing has showed up for me. Ordered about $200 worth of Shimano drive train parts. My first order with CRC as well, and it's taking wayyyy longer than I expected. Hopefully better luck on some future orders, or better yet, I hope this order even shows up!

Don't start to worry yet. It can often take 3 weeks.

Is there hard evidence that wider makes you faster? Shouldn't we first ask how tall the rider is and if they have broad shoulders? 

It seems like everyone is going wider and wider and riding similar bars, but bars should be sized to suit the rider. I'm 6'4" with broad shoulders and am happy with 740mm bars though I do ride some tight trees. 

I had to put narrower bars on my girlfriends bike because the stock ones are ridiculous for a 5'7" women for trail riding.

Also keen, are they available currently? Sending PM.