AJ_Barlas profile

Not the town it was when I moved here 13 years ago. Not even the same as 5 years ago. Times, they are a changing.

Yup. I ditched my DH bike a few years ago in favour of simplifying. I don’t race xc anymore – my heart hurt too much – so the most speedy trail whip wasn’t necessary either. That said, I reckon if I were in the shape I used to be, I wouldn’t be too far from my best climb times.

Simple answer though, yes, I’m a fan of one bike. It’s easier and I don’t want a shed full of bikes when only one can be ridden at a time.

I prefer a burlier tire and lighter wheel. But, it’s a balancing act to get the durability and support needed at a lower weight! I’m working on a few alloy wheel reviews currently and it’s pretty interesting!

It sucks. All hype, nothing to back it. Don’t go.

I believe that what your feeling, olaa, is the benefit of having the rider mass between the wheels. As each wheel is moved away from the rider mass, it's better able to move freely to input from the ground. Think of it as a hammock. As we compress with the G16 or G1 (or Pole bikes and similar, longer wheel based whips), our mass moves down between the axles more than it would on a more conventional bike. Similarly, without our mass over the axle as much, the wheel is better able to move up and over obstacles in the trail. The more beneath the rider the wheels, the more the damper needs to compensate for our sprung mass. 

Terrain and riding style still come into play, though. When things get smoother, I can stop down on the damper but because of all the features in the terrain around where I live, in an effort to have the wheels move out of the way quickly, I run my compression quite open. 

I can't say that I've noticed a large change in my rebound settings but I am lighter on the compression on my bikes than on test bikes with the same fork. It's harder to compare with the rear because different setups greatly change how the damper needs to be tuned, without even getting to the mass on the bike.

This. So much this. Seat angle needs to change proportionally for sure. And the days of XL models having a slacker STA than their smaller equivalents needs to stop.

I honestly haven’t looked too closely but I interested to see more from them and have them on my list for potential reviews. They’re doing some really interesting stuff!

It never even crossed my mind until you brought it up. I guess I'm not ready yet.

Nail on the head Perry. Yes, they climb better but they better centre rider mass, which greatly improves cornering, and any other trail riding that requires dynamic riding. Having ridden these longer bikes now for close to two years, moving back to smaller RC options has me battling to find a stable place to stand in chop, through deep compressions, and in cornering as you mention noticing. 

It's all about balance. Not having a chainstay grow with the size of the bike is ridiculous. It's worse than asking someone to wear a size small jean when they're an XL. No one needs to see the plumber and the individual shouldn't have to be so uncomfortable! That's obviously dumbing it down considerably because there's so much more going on with a bike, but that only exaggerates the whole situation. I've been stewing on an editorial on exactly this for 6 months and will try to get into it this winter. 

Andy, regarding the steeper seat angle for everyone. You have to find what works for you. I do find on long, flat road commutes to trailhead (usually when I'm in Aus.), my arms and hands can get sore and tired. On the trail I never have a problem, but my bike shape wouldn't work for road riding, and it's not supposed to! 

That said, I believe strongly in steeper seat angles because I've personally found I'm better able to put down the watts (what little I have). Regardless of size, steeper seat angles move the rider over the suspension, creating a more efficient pedal stroke and less need, or none, for climb switches. The longer RC should only come into play for larger sizes but as we saw in the past with many manufacturers making shorter chainstays across the board, many are now making longer ones across the board. It's no wonder someone on a size small or medium doesn't like longer chainstays—it's the equivalent to me running something monstrous (no, I don't consider the 453mm of my XL G1 big). I recently had an enlightening conversation with a young EWS racer about his size small bike with 430mm stays. He felt that larger bikes should grow at each end, but also found that the size small he was riding, which had a longer RC than Reach, was heaps long in the rear. Imagine if I were to run an RC longer than my reach? That's the only way I could feel what he does on his bike. 

Geometry is improving massively, but just like the introduction of big wheels, we all have heaps to learn before everyone has it pretty much dialled. I'm quite happy where I'm at now but will be testing different RC lengths, BB drop (and STA/HTA as a result) and wheel sizes. It's going to be a fun learning experience!

I ride everything on it, James V. From flat, pedally trails like Rob's and Cliff's corners (which are cornering fun on this!) to the typical steep gnar. It really is my everything bike. The G16 – very similar – did some full-blown XC loops in Bellingham too and I assume from rides so far that this would be even better handling on those trails.