What size are you testing?
Wow - that last photo is rad.
"The DNV will work with the mountain biking community to find more suitable structures, with the goal of striking an acceptable balance between rider safety and trail riding experience."
Is this what they consider working with the mountain biking community? Double talk and unilateral decision making?
Maybe a FOI request is needed to see what's really going on? Sounds like lies and deception to me.
But the seated length (butt-to-hands) has remained about the same since seat tube angles have increased along with reach. For example most medium frames still have an ETT of between 600-615mm as they did 3-4 years ago. But the standing length (ie. reach or feet-to-hands) is now 2-3 sizes bigger. So standing/descending on a medium 2019 Stumpy Evo is like standing/descending on a XXL bike from 2016 from a fit perspective. So if we could go back to 2016 (only talking about standing/descending position) we would tell people that they actually needed to size up 3 sizes.
I asked this over on PB, but I'll ask here as well because I'm genuinely curious. How many people riding a 400mm seat tube (let's call this a small, medium if we're being generous) need a 470mm reach? That's the equivalent to many XXLs in 2016 or XLs in 2017/18. Do people just straight line through the trails? This geo trend doesn't make any sense to me.
While I felt like you could have gone into a bit more depth, I was happy to see you acknowledge one of the downsides of a longer bike. Most reviewers seem to avoid the reality of physics or talk about pros and cons of different approaches. For me, a good review lays out all the trade offs and lets the reader decide whether the characteristics of that bike fit their needs, rather than read like another ad.
But reach isn't affected by STA. New geometry lets you keep the same length (butt-to-hands) when you're climbing/seated, but in standing you're riding a bike that's 2-3 sizes larger than a few seasons ago. STA is steeper, reach is longer, stem is shorter (but not enough to offset the increase in reach).
I get that the seated feel between the two bikes would be the same (TTTL/butt-to-hands), but in standing I'm still riding a much longer bike. So much so that It'd be like sizing up to a large (and then some) in my 2017 Range, or like sizing up to an XL compared to a 2016 Range. As someone who likes a nimble bike that can be thrown around that just doesn't appeal to me. Nor does having to ride a size small with a crazy amount of seatpost exposed when I buy a new bike in a year or two. I understand that there are benefits to a longer bike, but they just don't add up for my riding.
Am I the only one who thinks a 460mm reach for a medium is ridiculous? I already feel like my medium Range (430mm reach) is at the limits of what I'd enjoy riding.
Can you clarify your comment about stem length? I'm confused about how a shorter stem would make the steering feel more stable. Thanks!
I think there is a strong case for pedal assist mtbs for those with disabilities or of older age. An outright ban hits those people the hardest, but I understand why there is apprehension and agree that it's important to protect trail access. In an ideal world, you could create a permit system so that those who needed them could still access the trails, but this might not be practical.
Out of curiosity, what specifically about those grips helps you with your thumb/hand injury?
The length and size of the leg opening desperately need to be addressed on these shorts. I hardly wear mine, even when it's pouring, because they end up riding up above my knee pads. Nothing like having a gap between your thigh and knee pads when you're riding on a cold and rainy day...So frustrating as they work well otherwise.
Did you happen to try riding the Gangler on it? I get an unpleasant amount of bashguard rub rolling off the rock and that's on my Slayer with the adjustable geo in the 2nd steepest/highest position, so that's now become my test for bb clearance.
That skinny doesn't even have any green on it???