I am hitting a lot of things with my pedals these days.. that wasn't a problem in the past at all- so I am guessing the BB might go up again or maybe shorter cranks will be standard?
The cold truth is that the mountainbike industry doesn't really care about the riders as much as we think. They run a business, and the number one priority of a business is profit. When you see bikes from 10 years ago with more aggressive geometry and then you look at the same model now and they tamed it, it doesn't mean that the old bike was bad, it was too different from what the competition was doing. Most people are not going to buy something so radicaly different and they will most likely go with the most common trend. The whole geometry "evolution" is a fine balance for these companies: you don't want to be left behind the competition, but at the same time you don't want to be too bold with the geometry numbers. In other words, if they all made bikes with 62 degree head angle, 80 degree seat posts, long reach, long chainstays, there wouldn't be a reason to buy the next year's bike, because this year's bike would be good. Leaving geometry aside, in the past 10 years the biggest development in the mountain bike industry is the dropper post. The other "developments" like, wireless shifting, internal cable routing, plus size tires, wide rims, the K.I.S system, integrating the handlebar and stem into one unit and other gimmicks are just ways for the industry to sell us more stuff. These things don't solve anything, it's just another piece of eye candy to brag to your fellow riding mates, nothing more. In my opinion, the weakest link of today's mountan bikes is the transmission. We have things like the Sram XX1 that costs as much as a new mtb, and the chain, cassette and chainring wear down in one season of riding. Think about that for a minute. The mountain bike is more or less a glorified road bike with suspension. The gearbox MTB would be the next real development. Minimal maintenance, more sprung weight, less unsprung weight, no derailleurs to bang on rocks. I think I ranted enough, and probably no one is going to see this comment, but I don't care. Go ride your bikes and have fun!
The chances of your boutique cycle shop having on hand spare parts for bespoke designs is limited. Of course the parts can be ordered in. The days of the DIY mechanic to keep their rig rolling by calling into the shop after a session is lost to the 90s.
@@raab6044 I agree at the end of the day fun factor is all that matters. I tried electric mountain bikes at the park. It was too much. I miss the boring whined up the hill. The rush from the equipment barely able to cope with what you put it to. There is too much of a good thing some times.
27.5 Remedy 170 160mm I like watching my buddies slam pedal and bb's on anything technical. The flip chip is decent for park days but would never stop and change it at the top of a trail I just climed. New bikes are designed for parks and country club grommers.
Geometry is basically a way for manufacturers to keep selling new bikes, we've made some changes, so that means its better than lasts years bike, so you need to sell your old bike and buy the new one.
But if change is irrational, (and it often is today), we would not fall for it if we were not so irrational ourselves. What we are seeing here, is the result of poor education both as the engineers, and as the consumers. It is like we were taught that older people with experience and reason, are old fashioned, or even stupid. So we are starting out from scratch, with out the ability to actually figure anything out for ourselves. I see it in every industry, dysfunction. Slack head tube angles is just one example,---in our faces.
Geometry changes is a way for manufacturers to sell new bikes. Ive got a feeling in years time when the current trend of long/slack/big 29ers wears out, theres gonna be a 26 revival, or at least a 27.5/26 short bike/short reach setup for jibbing/jump trails.
@@ΣΤΑΥΡΟΣΓΚΕΡΛΕΣ Would you think that would be rational or irrational? I have a 29" Trek marlin 7, Gen 2, (old bike is a 1995 26 inch 22lb Ti frame bike with 3 chain rings), with a 4' fork, 69.5 deg head angle and single chain ring. The new bike does not turn worth a crap on flat corners and has pitiful top speed compared to the 1995 bike. I say we have entered an irrational era,---where we will buy into anything. If the citizenry/consumers, were rational, the companies could not be irrational. It is not just this industry though, it is every industry. We can't figure anything out today, and that means the future will pretty much suck.
@@EarthSurferUSA to tell you the truth ,I've seen manufacturers experimenting with these wheels and of course, they are already using the same argument they used when they wanted to promote 29 over 26. It is more than possible. I believe it is given.
Firstly, you don't know where the limit is until you've been past it so I encourage experimentation. The 'best' geometry however depends entirely on what sort of riding you do and what sort of terrain you ride. Long, low and slack sucks if you want to jib about in the local woods on 50m hills but a shorter bike with steeper head angle and slammed back wheel will suck on big mountains. Horses for courses... For reference, I have a DJ bike, super short, slammed back wheel and a steep 69deg head angle, my enduro bike is long, low and relatively slack (64deg) and my trail bike is somewhere in the middle (66deg head angle) but if I lived next to bigger hills I'd have something much slacker (nearer 64degs) for my middle quiver bike.
You can ride a 71 degree head tube down hills. We did it all the time. What is next, a springer front end off a Harley Chopper for downhill? I bet they could turn OK on a smooth berm too. Here is my rule of thumb. If you are going downhill over bumpy ground, braking for a corner, and your steering is not violently shaking from left to right to left to right, almost ripping the grips out of your hands, you may still have too slack of a head angle, and suffer in any sharp corner with out a berm. I would love to see the modern bikes turn a real hard packed (will not rut up) clay off camber (the opposite of a berm), corner. They will be washing out the front for half the day, getting too far forward then washing out the back end for the second half of the day.
@@EarthSurferUSA I rode a 1997 Yeti ARC hardtail with 100mm Mk1 Z1 Bombers for 5 years in the French Alps so I know what you're saying. IMO steeper head angles might not be faster overall but they;re easier to get round tight switchbacks where you would otherwise need to do a "French turn" (endo).
@@EarthSurferUSA A motocross bike is much heavier and softer than a MTB and less inclined to tip you over the bars. They also go up at high speed as well as down, unlike a DH or enduro MTB. The slack head angle does help when your back wheel is a metre above your front, otherwise you'd have a vertical or negative head angle which would be scary twitchy and put a lot of loading on the welds around the head tube (MTBs have to be a lot lighter than an MX bike).
I like my old bikes. I can reach for the dh bike if I want low, long(ish), and slack. Climbs better then it has any right to. If I want some gravel/mixed on off road I grab the 80's mtb. If I want a trail ride I grab my shorter trail bike with a dropper and wide bars. No, your bike won't have all the up to date standards in 5 years, but it will be fun.
I feel all companies and top riders have tried and tested all types of geometries, but now we've finally peaked and eventually found the sweet spot which only varies very slightly between each brand. Both downhill and enduro have found where its at and won't deviate from that too much in the future.
As long as world cup tracks doesn't has their profile changed, because mainly the changes in geometry are for keeping up with riding demands, and one of them are the WC track style changes, going more park style and less singletrack natural stuff...
your statement is flawed, in that, at every single point in time, riders and companies are in agreement on the best geometry, and yet they change. in 2018, riders and companies all thought that the 2018 geo is the perfect geo, and yet they change. The same can be said for any single point in time. Nothing is ever not changing
Mulleted my ‘18 yt Jeffsy. Put a slightly shorter stroke shock on making it a 142r 150f travel bike and still love it now. Riding my buddies Ripmo, demoed a newer Santa Cruz and riding my wife’s nukeproof reactor I still think my Jeffsy is such a solid bike. Could pedal a little more efficiently but feels just as good still on the downs.
Ideal Trailbike geometry is about a 77* STA, 65* HTA, and 1240 wheelbase size large. Get much much longer/slacker and the bike becomes unwieldy on tight turns and for easier flat trails. Get much shorter/steeper and the bike gives up descending capability. Some of the best Trailbikes made have this geo or something very close: Specialized Stumpjumper EVO, Yeti SB140 LR, Norco Fluid FS, Rocky Mountain Element. I wouldn't recommend any Trailbike, 120mm to 150mm rear travel, that doesn't have geometry fairly close to these numbers.
Yep totally agree on the trail bike geo. And only very slight changes from that geo are to make it slightly* more capable downhill or slightly more racey/downcountry. Mostly by about one degree of HTA either way.
Not if you like to corner with out a berm. My 29" wheel 69.5ha Trek turns like a bus compared to my 71ha 1995 Ti frame 26" wheel bike. Corner on a slick off camber with no ruts,---and these modern geometries will see them on the ground with any aggression. I notice all the modern bikers show vids with berms. They don't know what a fast cornering bike feels like when done right. A chopper can ride a berm, not much else well.
I have a Salsa Rustler Carbon which is a great trail bike. It has 150mm up front and 130mm in the rear. The head angle is around 66 degrees, slightly adjustable above or below that. For a large it is a 460 reach, mine is a small at 420mm. I absolutely love this bike for a wide range of riding. I think this is the sweet spot to be honest.
@@sandy_knight That's what a sweet spot is. Then you tweak things one way for for DH specific and the other way for more XC specific stuff. 85% or so of mountain bikers don't ride much DH at all.
@@ShadLife If you mean that a trail bike is in between an XC bike and a DH bike I can't disagree with that but that's like saying the sweet spot for an airplane is a 737. It's only at the sweet spot for a specific type of flight and very much sub-optimal for anything else. IMO the 'sweet spot' should cover most of the types of riding *you* do so will depend on what sort of terrain *you* ride.
Do we like stretched out bikes with slack head angles and 29" tires because we think cornering with out a berm should be hard? My 1995, 26" Ti bike will cut the inside line with ease, under any of these slack/long bikes today. I might like 69 deg head angle for steep down hills though. The only corner that can tolerate a slack head angle, if you want optimum cornering ability, is a corner with a berm. Motocross bikes for example, went steeper and steeper until the bike shook it's head. Then they slacked it about 1 degree. We buy choppers today for Mt. Bike riding? I bet I can sell ape hanger handlebars too, if a yahoo on YT will praise it,---and I bet they will. It is up to us to be rational, so we don't buy into anything and everything irrational.
I love the 2000's frames with today's Drivetrain's at a age of 60. If I was younger and the bones didn't hurt as much I would be still riding small sub 17 lb bikes of the 90's but with today's drivetrain!!!! I can see myself riding today frame's later in my life as my bones hurt and ache to much when I become a old geezer!!!
I am 60 also. But I don't like a bike that can't corner easily with out a berm and has the top speed of only about 25mph because of a single chain ring. You did not have a sub 17lb Mt. Bike. Maybe 20lb with a rigid fork. A22lb Ti. frame bike with a Rock Shox mag 21 for a 2" travel suspension fork was about as light as they got, (and not break). There was never a sub 17lb Mt. Bike made in production. Road bikes, yes, I think so.
I don't know of many bike's that can't corner over my years of riding. But I do agree the newer frames take a lot less riding skill to corner out of the box. And for speed it's setup for the flow of the trails and your style of riding. I usually run 34 in the front 11-40 in the back my one Son runs 38 front, and 11-34 back the other Son run 36 , 11-40 and daughter runs 34, 11-36 in the back on our local trails here in Maryland.
Raising the bb height is a way to keep the bike turning reasonably well despite having a long fc and cs and a slack head angle. I must say the geometry of about three to five years ago still feels best to me, 64-65 degree head angle, 435-445 reach in medium and 425-435 cs might keep you on your toes a bit more at speed but on my favourite kind of trails (mid speed, very steep and techy) it just clicks.
In my area there is limited elevation change (200 ft?), so no long downhills. Just rode a trail today that is very old school, reminded me of riding in the 90s. Natural tight terrain, no man-made features except bridges and erosion controls. Under these conditions and the other trails I use, the 69.5 degree head tube on my bike is great. The precision of the steering is so nice, making wheel placement on tricky roots and rocks very instinctual. My point is that the bikes covered here are great on the terrain they're designed for. But off-road riding happens in many types of terrain, and I am glad there are still more upright bikes available for the kind of riding I do.
Right, but these slack head tube angles are just irrational today. 2 degrees from 69 is a huge difference, 9in co0rnering and stability), either way you go. We have to be rational consumers, or we can be sold anything just because it is change, or different. I want to see them go fast on a real clay off camber corner, and I would put them on a down hill course too, and watch the bike frames get rational again. I bet I can sell ape hanger handlebars to these chopper riding bikers for down hill berm riding. A more relaxed position is all I would have to claim. :) motocross did it right. They went steeper and steeper until the head shook, (my 88 Honda was notorious for it), and then they backed it off like one degree. My modern 29" Mt. Bike with a 69.5 deg head tube angle turns on flat ground like a bus compared to my 1995 Ti frame 71 degree 26" wheel bike, and one chain ring (I should have known better with just a little math) has pitiful top speed in comparison too.
@EarthSurferUSA If I was younger (60s) and in better shape (getting there 🤠) the one by drive train would be getting to me also. I have been cutting down my bars also. Pretty sure another inch or so is coming off soon. Have a good one. 😎
No mention of XC bikes -- is that because they are still changing and that would muddy the conclusion? They may not be the most popular segment, but nor are downhill bikes
Great question Josh! Downcountry is still a young segment and we're watching with interest, and XC bikes seem to keep getting more aggressive! Definitely warrants some more investigation... ~ Will
Notice that progressive bike geometry is largely driven by bikes servicing the “gravity crowd”, where pedalling efficiency is not the priority. We now have super steep seat angles to help in climbing and 155mm cranks to avoid pedal strikes. For down-country and trail category, the complaints about pedal strikes are now standard for every bike. Yet many reviews focus on descending, where these bikes do excel, while sacrificing 80% of the riding experience where pedalling efficiency is important.
I built a “Downduro” from a Trek Session frame and suspension. Added a dropper post and an 11 speed drivetrain. It’s not the best at climbing…but it gets the job done and the decent is👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻
I'm still sitting here with a mid 90s Cannondale with a very steep head angle and low travel, absolutely rips on my local trails, I still can't imagine how the modern DH bikes would handle compared to it. Pretty budget friendly setup. Killer V900, box four 1x8 transmission, Manitou Black 80mm air fork, 26x2.25 MSW Utility Player tires. Think it cost me like 300 to build?
@@Dannyjones1that I could! It's just such a radically different setup that it'll take time to get used to. My love lays on tight, twisty trails with a lot of up and down so that pseudo-xc setup perfectly matched what I want.
90s was my prime. Trust me when I tell you- you are missing out. You only think you’re ripping because you have no point of reference. Doesn’t sound like you need one of the bikes this vid is about, but go try a modern, aggressive XC (the Downtcountry bike) or short travel trail bike something like the Santa Cruz Blur TR, Tallboy or 5010, or Ibis Ripley, or Pivot Trail 429, or Trek Supercaliber or Top Fuel. Not only do they rip faster but because they are more capable they are way more fun too. It’s not just geo changes in a vacuum, but everything that goes along with the geo changes- the shorter stem and wider bars, dropper seat posts and 1x drivetrains, disc brakes. It all adds up to a bike that goes faster, feels more confidence inspiring doing it because it is better at it, and way more fun. Go demo some modern bikes a couple weekends in a row. What do you have to lose?
Compared to your Cannondale, (a factory I interviewed at for a job with the motocross bikes back in 2001, but turned down the job offer), you would not be able to turn the modern slack bikes with out a berm. I have a 26" Ti frame, 22lb, 1995 Nuke Proof bike from back when I worked for them when NK was in Michigan, (a museum piece), that will out corner my Trek Marlin 7 like it is a school bus, and smoke that single chain ring in top speed. Wanna start a business selling ape hanger handlebars? All we have to say is they offer a more relaxed riding position. :)
@@Dannyjones1 I tried. I know. I can't turn this 29" wheel 69.5 head angle (steep today), Trek marlin 7 worth a crap on flat ground compare to my 95 bike. And the top speed of a single chain ring? Top speed is pathetic. I grew up with kids in the 80's who can run that fast (for a short period of time).
Before watching the video: All I see is MTB's getting closer to dirt bike geometry like they should have been in the first place. After watching the video: Yup, but disagree that they've hit the sweet spot.
Woohoo! Future proofing all around! Dropper post - check, one-by drivetrain - check, modern geometry sweet spot - check! Rest assured, they will come up with something else we need.
No, you will buy anything they make with out thinking about it. Sorry. Slack head tubes are for the Hell's Angels, and we figured that out decades ago. We need to redefine "class action law suits" and sue our schools for teaching us to follow instead of think. I don't like my single chain ring drive trail either, (I might like a dropper seat post, but have no problem with cross country down hills with out it). The top speed is pathetic, and the creeper gear is lower with more than one chain ring. I should have done some simple math before I bought a single ring bike, and I would have known better. I knew kids who could run (for a short distance), as fast as I can pedal that thing.
Just jump up a few teeth on the front chain ring and it will help. I went from a 2009 Rockhopper to a 2021 Fuse so I don't upgrade very often. I wanted to experience some of the latest tech for myself. And I only buy Alloy frames for the best value.@@EarthSurferUSA
@@EarthSurferUSA yo why's the 1x drivetrain so shit? I upgraded from 3x to 1x and it's got just enough range for me even though it's only 1x10 46 tooth. I agree it really doesn't matter as much as people say (like everything bikewise) but it's definitely an improvement in my eyes.
The MTB tech and geomtery peaked about 2012 with the IBIS SLR. After that, they had become more boring, wheelsize swollen. And similar in DH. Luckily, I have my 2008 Santa Cruz Bullit. It is about 150-200 mm shorter than todays bikes and the handling so much better. Todays bikes are made for going sable in a straight line. They are good a that, but that is not my type of riding.
Compared to my 1995 26" wheel Nuke Proof 22lb, 71 deg head angle, 3" shorter, Ti. framed bike with a 80mm fork and 3 chain rings, (back when Nuke Proof was Michigan. I used to work there), my new 29" wheel Trek marlin 7 Gen 2 (with a super steep head angle of 69.5 degrees, for today but slack for me, and a 100mm fork), does not turn worth a crap on flat ground, and the top speed is pathetic. That long frame and 69.5 degree head angle, I would love for any of the downhill today. I think I will put some ape hanger handlebars on the market for these young YT guys to love, for "a NEW, more relaxing rider position". :)
You get good on what you use. Maybe you will find something that works better, but always chasing that perfect "tool" will just empty your bank account and leave you jaded. Perfect recipe for an internet know-it-all!
IMO the push to a longer/slacker/lower on short travel and XC bikes adversely impacts its a-typical surroundings. They are harder to weight the front end, requiring more leaning out of the saddle, than steering on when tackling challenging off/camber climbs. The benefits in descending, I don't think are translating in overall circuit or PR times... Also even this geo on 'trail' bikes, makes it a little less 'poppy', as a steeper and more weighted front end makes for much more natural J hops and ramping up lips of jumps. Even though DH bikes do make jump lines look amazing, there is a reason why slope style bikes with 69 HTA are still purpose built.
But the question is still why. Not the specs. What does the different angels earn or loose? Are you light and gain in stops and bumps or heavy and can power out of corners and deep shocks? Different bikes i presume?
My newest bike (Orbea Laufey) is long, big and slack. 65,5 headangle hardtail with 140 mm damper. I like it. I am kind of sitting inside the bike, rather than on the top. That takes away fear of heights and feels supersafe declining. It is good both up , down and flat, and does cornering very well. Its my slackest bike.
Like all things, moustaches included, things reach a point where they just become out of fashion and start to look ridiculous. 29'ers with super mellow headangles fullfil only one purpose and for everything else, are boring as hell to ride unless on the steepest of trails. Common sense, and not needing to have the lastest shiny bauble and be the cool kid will prevail. Mullets seem to be making a comeback, the wheel size, god help us if the hairstyle comes back. I think we will see 26-27.5 mixed wheel before long. You know, bikes that are actually fun to ride and engage the rider...
I'm riding a Radon slide 160 from 2016 and to be honest it also isn't outdated, it runs on 27.5" wheels but thats actually advatageous on the twistier trails I ride.
I had a land line telephone. I know it is outdated,---but boy did it work better for clear and uninterrupted communication. My old 26" 1995 Mt. bike turns so well also, it makes these modern bikes look like a turning school bus on anything with out a berm.
You can do what ever you want, why does there have to be limits, if you want a “grim donut” 57 degree headtube with a 90 degree seat tube f it, go ride it…if you like it cool, doesn’t matter what the media or others think. Go ride, that’s it.
Great comment, we totally agree! Everyone has different preferences concerning what they like to ride, from singlespeed XC hardtails to Grim Donuts, it's all mountain biking! And this variety is one of the things that makes our sport so great! ~ Will
Nice recap of the evolution of modern mtb's. Personally, my idea of good geometry revolves around balance. Front to rear center lengths and the right wheelbase for what you are after. Achieving a long front center is possible via long reach or a slack head tube angle. Probably some differences in handling between the two approaches, but for me the important thing is how much is the distance between the two wheels and where the rider sits between them.
The bikes have gotten slacker as the trails have become wider and "flowy". You can't ride these bikes on narrow trails.They're 'stable' but can't turn worth a damn.
Lets put it to a real world test. I will take old man John Tomac on a 90's bike, and pit him up against anybody today on a modern slacker, on every kind of terrain that has ever been ridden on a Mt. Bike. Guess what bike is better for 95% of what we ride?
With "shaped skis", we overshot and then got back to something more sensible. In the mid 2000s, skis were extremely short and stiff with RIDICULOUS hourglass sidecuts.
Like solar panels trying to run a factory? If we the consumer are irrational----we will buy into anything. The Harley Chopper springer front end is the next thing that will be praised for Mt. Bike riding, because we are not rational enough to figure out it would be irrational. That is interesting, to a good psychologist, (which most are irrational also today), and also heart breaking. Trust me, the future for a citizenry who can think is going to be much better than the future for a citizenry that is irrational. How is your math? :)
Same with the 150mm Canyon Spectral, which was also ridden in EWS prior to the new Strive coming out. The middle "All Mountain" category seems to have disappeared. Regarding the trail/enduro split, I'd argue that trail bikes are now 160F. Obviously there will still be outliers.
Ah you're so right! That's a great example. There does seem to be a grey area between trail and enduro bikes when it comes to rear wheel travel! ~ Will
Roadies grew up with BMX and MTB? Then why was it in the mid 90's, when the roadies went Mt. Bike riding, they were only good (ummm, great actually), at climbing? It was very easy to tell a roadie from a BMX or Motocross guy. Not only on the down hill and up hill trail, but the roadie would bag and carry their poop home. lol
i'll have do disagree. in the entire video there is no mention of the chainstay lenght, just as if everything on the back of the bike doesn't matter. in the last 10 years the chainstays have stayed more or less the same lenght while the rest of the bike got a lot longer. thats a big mistake and causes the bikes to feel really unbalanced. future bikes will have longer chainstays so you can ride the bikes in a more neutral bodyposition without loosing front end grip. we already see the longer chainstays on some bikes and im sure it will be more comon in 2-3 years. Having a XL Downhill bike with less than 450mm chainstays is rediculous, these is realy no problem with chainstays 460mm and more when your bike has 500mm reach.
No such thing as "peak". Bikes change, trails change to adjust, and bikes and trails follow each other. Maybe geo has matched today's trails, but this is just temporary. E bikes will change trails substantially. Bike Geo will chase those trails.
Low bottom brackets have been enabled due to 1x drivetrains. However, it makes technical climbing very difficult. FAR more pedal strikes on modern bikes. I really like my 2014 Tallboy LT (which was originally 3x10) for technical climbing. 343 mm BB height. 1164mm wheelbase make it easy to lift the wheel and easy on switchbacks. Of course, I put on a -1.5 degree angleset and longer fork to get the HTA down to the high 67 degree range.
Agree on the tech climbing thing but disagree on why. Everyone talks about pedal strikes- I don’t get that. I mean timing pedals has always been part of the game going back to my first mtb in 1990. To me the problem is not pedal strikes, but rather the wheelbase length combined with the low bb means lots of bb strikes, especially on full sus bikes where your bb gets even lower under pedal power and when the sus is active, and because of the worse breakover angle.
@@dadventuretv2538 Yeah timing is obviously important...but it's way MORE important on newer bikes, which means that many time, you're not able to put power down when you need to. Breakover obviously doesn't help either. I think the older bikes like my Tallboy LT actually make better trail bikes (at least with an angleset to slack things out a bit). I rode my Tallboy back to back with a brand new Hightower and, although the Hightower was a better descender, the Tallboy was better at everything else. The frame weighs 1/3 less, too!
according to dace and asto we will only peak when bikes will be sold in xl only and dual crown fork for enduro plus long chainstays to balance the long rech and slack headangle
I think geo is well defined within tight parameters according to your sizing. Those would be specific to the trails you ride. That'd be my impression. I doubt theres imrovements to be made in geo that are not minimal. Reach and such are out of reach. shorten up, and lower standover heights for everybody.
Exercise your brain, and you will get smart. After almost flunking HS myself, and later earning 2 engineering degrees in 8 years of study, I became the sharpest guy in the class. Those bastards running the HS told me to go for sports!!!! we only have one life, and it is human to think. I see so much potential we waste because of what my brain did. Here is a quote from Thomas Edison: "If we would do the things we are capable of, we would astound ourselves." What a great quote. Very true.
Hey Brendan, Bionicon have made a bike with on-the-fly geometry adjust! Read about it here... www.bikeradar.com/reviews/bikes/mountain-bikes/bionicon-edison-evo-0-review
Don't worry people. Soon the bicycle industry will invent new factors to focus the publics eyes. Remember, once they advertised the complicated new rear suspension designs. Papers and papers, and youtubers trying to advertise rear suspension as much as possible. Oh, that went well didn't it, after a while everyone realised that all designs had their pros and cons and not clear winner. Know they have emphasized on geometry and a new circle of advertisments began. And all forgot the suspension design. Let's see what they come up to next to focus our attention on.
Trek was late to the Enduro Slack and longer game and they still did not understand that if your reach grows you neet to put the seat more forward. Why do I see almost all Trek Enduro Sleds with max seat position forward? Because they suck in understanding what long low slack also needs. Steeper seat tubes .. Trek was not a good example for the Enduro bikes. They only made their ST angle steeper now.. Most Enduro bikes are still to slack for the seatube for my liking. Do so many pedal on flat paved roads`? Dunno but the 161 from Privateer was almost perfect with that angle game...
I prefer the 2018~2020 geo 64~65 ha 42~44 offset 475~490 reach . These long slack bikes are bike park only . Doing 5~8 hour back country epic technical rides need a bike that pedals, climbs efficiently and rips downhills. I have a 2019 trek slash 9.9 and a new geo 2022 slash 9.9. The 2017 ~2020 geo is a great balance. Ride 8 hours next weekend win enduro race . The new geo is a heavy tank that rides like the brakes are dragging. Sold the 2022 and still ride race the 2019
Why are you showing a picture of the 2023 stumpjumper when you're calling it the 2023 stumpjumper evo?? 64.5 is the headtube angle of the evo 2021 0nward in neutral
LONGER? WHY? No god please. Lower YES but not LONGER Its already hard with those full war ship downhill machines to manual because they are so long i vote for testing shorter bikes with longer or higher or longer AND higher stems (aggain)
Naah.. longer but with higher bottom bracket. You will feel more in control and it is easier to lean the bike into a turn and really engage the sideknobs. You can be in a neutral position on the bike with less risk of getting bucked. It will also climb well with less pedalstrikes. 480 reach, 77.5 seat tube, 63 head tube, 445 chainstay, 30 or less bottom bracket drop is a good geo for a size large trail/all mountain bike
wait until we have a tecnological breakthrough like a new drivetrain system or new suspension design or kinematics. That what makes things interesting 🎉🎉🎉 (and unfortunately more expensive)
Get out and ride, its all smoke and mirrors /marketing hype for any rider with a modicum of talent, millimeters here and there and degrees plus or minus will not make an iota of difference
Totally agree. Too many people are bothered about having the latest greatest thing and actually forget about being connected to the bike and some feedback that involves you.
I prefer a 62* HTA myself, having tried a few settings. (dh only) I also prefer not as long of a reach. Yes, it does feel more stable, but at the cost of flick-ability. Quick, snappy turns are better on shorter reach for me.
What about the placebo effect? Consumers feel something different therefore it must be better. Yet they might not be any faster. What about cycling bodies fixing the geometry, so it's out of the hands of frame designers.
Actually, that is more like the "Hawthorn effect" I think. But I think both are out of context for what you are saying. "New" is often seen as "better". I bet this bloke never spoke to anybody on a land line. Frame design has been taken over by the art department. In fact, all productive "thinking" has been taken over by the art department IMO., so this generation will retire in poverty. Because with out productive thinking/doing, there is no prosperity. That is why our communistic federal government sent our production to communism in china, and push arts and crafts (or anything dysfunctional) in our schools of "anti-reason", which lead to slack head tube angels for a dirt bike.
The modern "safety bike" layout has been around for 140 years. You'd think that we would've reached peak geometry about 100 years ago. How are we still figuring this out?
Because mountain bikes haven’t been around that long. And in the late 80s mtbs evolved from road bikes- the worst thing ever. It took a long time for the majority of manufacturers to throw out everything they knew about bikes from road biking and build a machine from the ground up specifically best designed for the different kinds of mountain biking.
@@dadventuretv2538 One might say it's paved roads that haven't been around that long. The first bikes were basically "gravel bikes". I wonder if the geometry on those was similar to modern mountain bikes
Still not worth and unjustified the price bike makers charge. A half dozen tubes welded together = $5000?!?!(or more) A Chevy Spark (which is a car) can be bought for $14,500 in 2023 ...20,000+ parts
Tech. Just look at all the bs theyre now trying to say we need- live valve shocks, electronic shifters, automatic shifting, ABS. Up until now the changes made mtbs better- more capable and more fun, but they kept the essence of riding a bike. I think in 10-20 years time if the tech is bought into mtbing will be a different thing entirely with the only thing the same to what we are doing now being the pedal input.
Enduro and DH should all move to Middrive gearboxes, belt drive, mullet with a high pivot rear suspension layot. Headtube angle around 64° with an inverted fork. XC and trail should just agree to retire and let their lovechild "downcountry" 🤠🐄 take center stage. Let them continue to pay the derailer tax.
What is your preferred MTB geometry?
For enduro I like longer reach, slacker head angle, taller front end stack, higher bottom bracket, and longer chainstays.
Enduro Steel Hardtail with 63,5 HTA, 75 STA, 460mm reach, 435mm chainstays, high stack and low BB. Love it
Spherical trigonometry
I am hitting a lot of things with my pedals these days.. that wasn't a problem in the past at all- so I am guessing the BB might go up again or maybe shorter cranks will be standard?
@@olik136 shorter cranks. They go as low as 145mm with 5Dev or Hope
The cold truth is that the mountainbike industry doesn't really care about the riders as much as we think. They run a business, and the number one priority of a business is profit. When you see bikes from 10 years ago with more aggressive geometry and then you look at the same model now and they tamed it, it doesn't mean that the old bike was bad, it was too different from what the competition was doing. Most people are not going to buy something so radicaly different and they will most likely go with the most common trend. The whole geometry "evolution" is a fine balance for these companies: you don't want to be left behind the competition, but at the same time you don't want to be too bold with the geometry numbers. In other words, if they all made bikes with 62 degree head angle, 80 degree seat posts, long reach, long chainstays, there wouldn't be a reason to buy the next year's bike, because this year's bike would be good. Leaving geometry aside, in the past 10 years the biggest development in the mountain bike industry is the dropper post. The other "developments" like, wireless shifting, internal cable routing, plus size tires, wide rims, the K.I.S system, integrating the handlebar and stem into one unit and other gimmicks are just ways for the industry to sell us more stuff. These things don't solve anything, it's just another piece of eye candy to brag to your fellow riding mates, nothing more. In my opinion, the weakest link of today's mountan bikes is the transmission. We have things like the Sram XX1 that costs as much as a new mtb, and the chain, cassette and chainring wear down in one season of riding. Think about that for a minute. The mountain bike is more or less a glorified road bike with suspension. The gearbox MTB would be the next real development. Minimal maintenance, more sprung weight, less unsprung weight, no derailleurs to bang on rocks. I think I ranted enough, and probably no one is going to see this comment, but I don't care. Go ride your bikes and have fun!
spot the fuck on brother!
BuT i DoN't LiKe It!!!!!
The chances of your boutique cycle shop having on hand spare parts for bespoke designs is limited. Of course the parts can be ordered in. The days of the DIY mechanic to keep their rig rolling by calling into the shop after a session is lost to the 90s.
Hear, hear! Hardtail with 26" wheels, 80mm travel fork, 71 degree HT angle and still having a blast on the trails
@@raab6044 I agree at the end of the day fun factor is all that matters. I tried electric mountain bikes at the park. It was too much. I miss the boring whined up the hill. The rush from the equipment barely able to cope with what you put it to. There is too much of a good thing some times.
All for the longer and slacker but low BBs are a real world nightmare - forever striking the chainring on rocks and roots!
Back to bash guards
I have coined the term PSA.........pedal strike anxiety .
My stump jumper evo lets me choose my BB hight so I can be stupid low or raise it to avoid hitting stuff
27.5 Remedy 170 160mm I like watching my buddies slam pedal and bb's on anything technical. The flip chip is decent for park days but would never stop and change it at the top of a trail I just climed. New bikes are designed for parks and country club grommers.
A well needed discussion on "modern" geometry. Do you really need irritating background muzak though...it is not a supermarket lol.
4 words: Grim Doughnut Yohan Barelli
Geometry is basically a way for manufacturers to keep selling new bikes, we've made some changes, so that means its better than lasts years bike, so you need to sell your old bike and buy the new one.
But if change is irrational, (and it often is today), we would not fall for it if we were not so irrational ourselves. What we are seeing here, is the result of poor education both as the engineers, and as the consumers. It is like we were taught that older people with experience and reason, are old fashioned, or even stupid. So we are starting out from scratch, with out the ability to actually figure anything out for ourselves. I see it in every industry, dysfunction. Slack head tube angles is just one example,---in our faces.
Geometry changes is a way for manufacturers to sell new bikes. Ive got a feeling in years time when the current trend of long/slack/big 29ers wears out, theres gonna be a 26 revival, or at least a 27.5/26 short bike/short reach setup for jibbing/jump trails.
They are already making 31 and 36 inch wheels. I believe that 31 will be the next thing.
@@ΣΤΑΥΡΟΣΓΚΕΡΛΕΣ Would you think that would be rational or irrational? I have a 29" Trek marlin 7, Gen 2, (old bike is a 1995 26 inch 22lb Ti frame bike with 3 chain rings), with a 4' fork, 69.5 deg head angle and single chain ring. The new bike does not turn worth a crap on flat corners and has pitiful top speed compared to the 1995 bike. I say we have entered an irrational era,---where we will buy into anything. If the citizenry/consumers, were rational, the companies could not be irrational. It is not just this industry though, it is every industry. We can't figure anything out today, and that means the future will pretty much suck.
@@EarthSurferUSA to tell you the truth ,I've seen manufacturers experimenting with these wheels and of course, they are already using the same argument they used when they wanted to promote 29 over 26. It is more than possible. I believe it is given.
Firstly, you don't know where the limit is until you've been past it so I encourage experimentation. The 'best' geometry however depends entirely on what sort of riding you do and what sort of terrain you ride.
Long, low and slack sucks if you want to jib about in the local woods on 50m hills but a shorter bike with steeper head angle and slammed back wheel will suck on big mountains. Horses for courses...
For reference, I have a DJ bike, super short, slammed back wheel and a steep 69deg head angle, my enduro bike is long, low and relatively slack (64deg) and my trail bike is somewhere in the middle (66deg head angle) but if I lived next to bigger hills I'd have something much slacker (nearer 64degs) for my middle quiver bike.
You can ride a 71 degree head tube down hills. We did it all the time. What is next, a springer front end off a Harley Chopper for downhill? I bet they could turn OK on a smooth berm too. Here is my rule of thumb. If you are going downhill over bumpy ground, braking for a corner, and your steering is not violently shaking from left to right to left to right, almost ripping the grips out of your hands, you may still have too slack of a head angle, and suffer in any sharp corner with out a berm. I would love to see the modern bikes turn a real hard packed (will not rut up) clay off camber (the opposite of a berm), corner. They will be washing out the front for half the day, getting too far forward then washing out the back end for the second half of the day.
@@EarthSurferUSA I rode a 1997 Yeti ARC hardtail with 100mm Mk1 Z1 Bombers for 5 years in the French Alps so I know what you're saying. IMO steeper head angles might not be faster overall but they;re easier to get round tight switchbacks where you would otherwise need to do a "French turn" (endo).
@@EarthSurferUSA A motocross bike is much heavier and softer than a MTB and less inclined to tip you over the bars. They also go up at high speed as well as down, unlike a DH or enduro MTB. The slack head angle does help when your back wheel is a metre above your front, otherwise you'd have a vertical or negative head angle which would be scary twitchy and put a lot of loading on the welds around the head tube (MTBs have to be a lot lighter than an MX bike).
I like my old bikes. I can reach for the dh bike if I want low, long(ish), and slack. Climbs better then it has any right to. If I want some gravel/mixed on off road I grab the 80's mtb. If I want a trail ride I grab my shorter trail bike with a dropper and wide bars.
No, your bike won't have all the up to date standards in 5 years, but it will be fun.
I feel all companies and top riders have tried and tested all types of geometries, but now we've finally peaked and eventually found the sweet spot which only varies very slightly between each brand. Both downhill and enduro have found where its at and won't deviate from that too much in the future.
As long as world cup tracks doesn't has their profile changed, because mainly the changes in geometry are for keeping up with riding demands, and one of them are the WC track style changes, going more park style and less singletrack natural stuff...
You wait till the 32" wheels hit the market 😂. In all honesty you could probably run them at most bike parks 😉
your statement is flawed, in that, at every single point in time, riders and companies are in agreement on the best geometry, and yet they change. in 2018, riders and companies all thought that the 2018 geo is the perfect geo, and yet they change. The same can be said for any single point in time. Nothing is ever not changing
They need to change geometry. How else would they distinguish next years model from last year's model...
@@BramBiesiekierski introduce new colours and thats it, works fine for apple at least
Mulleted my ‘18 yt Jeffsy. Put a slightly shorter stroke shock on making it a 142r 150f travel bike and still love it now. Riding my buddies Ripmo, demoed a newer Santa Cruz and riding my wife’s nukeproof reactor I still think my Jeffsy is such a solid bike. Could pedal a little more efficiently but feels just as good still on the downs.
Haha, I was wondering if anyone has ever mullet a Jeffsy. Awesome.
Ideal Trailbike geometry is about a 77* STA, 65* HTA, and 1240 wheelbase size large. Get much much longer/slacker and the bike becomes unwieldy on tight turns and for easier flat trails. Get much shorter/steeper and the bike gives up descending capability. Some of the best Trailbikes made have this geo or something very close: Specialized Stumpjumper EVO, Yeti SB140 LR, Norco Fluid FS, Rocky Mountain Element. I wouldn't recommend any Trailbike, 120mm to 150mm rear travel, that doesn't have geometry fairly close to these numbers.
Yep totally agree on the trail bike geo. And only very slight changes from that geo are to make it slightly* more capable downhill or slightly more racey/downcountry. Mostly by about one degree of HTA either way.
That are exact numbers of my superlight trail ebike Orbea RIse, it rips my local trails, very special ebike with feeling of normal bike
Not if you like to corner with out a berm. My 29" wheel 69.5ha Trek turns like a bus compared to my 71ha 1995 Ti frame 26" wheel bike. Corner on a slick off camber with no ruts,---and these modern geometries will see them on the ground with any aggression. I notice all the modern bikers show vids with berms. They don't know what a fast cornering bike feels like when done right. A chopper can ride a berm, not much else well.
I love that mondraker stem at 11:06.
Absolutely! A great piece of design, I would love one!
~ Will
I have a Salsa Rustler Carbon which is a great trail bike. It has 150mm up front and 130mm in the rear. The head angle is around 66 degrees, slightly adjustable above or below that. For a large it is a 460 reach, mine is a small at 420mm. I absolutely love this bike for a wide range of riding. I think this is the sweet spot to be honest.
For a middle quiver/trail bike I 100% agree, It's not the sweet spot for big, steep hills though.
@@sandy_knight That's what a sweet spot is. Then you tweak things one way for for DH specific and the other way for more XC specific stuff. 85% or so of mountain bikers don't ride much DH at all.
@@ShadLife If you mean that a trail bike is in between an XC bike and a DH bike I can't disagree with that but that's like saying the sweet spot for an airplane is a 737. It's only at the sweet spot for a specific type of flight and very much sub-optimal for anything else.
IMO the 'sweet spot' should cover most of the types of riding *you* do so will depend on what sort of terrain *you* ride.
Do we like stretched out bikes with slack head angles and 29" tires because we think cornering with out a berm should be hard? My 1995, 26" Ti bike will cut the inside line with ease, under any of these slack/long bikes today. I might like 69 deg head angle for steep down hills though. The only corner that can tolerate a slack head angle, if you want optimum cornering ability, is a corner with a berm. Motocross bikes for example, went steeper and steeper until the bike shook it's head. Then they slacked it about 1 degree. We buy choppers today for Mt. Bike riding? I bet I can sell ape hanger handlebars too, if a yahoo on YT will praise it,---and I bet they will. It is up to us to be rational, so we don't buy into anything and everything irrational.
@@ShadLifeBingo. 95% is probably closer.
I love the 2000's frames with today's Drivetrain's at a age of 60. If I was younger and the bones didn't hurt as much I would be still riding small sub 17 lb bikes of the 90's but with today's drivetrain!!!! I can see myself riding today frame's later in my life as my bones hurt and ache to much when I become a old geezer!!!
I am 60 also. But I don't like a bike that can't corner easily with out a berm and has the top speed of only about 25mph because of a single chain ring.
You did not have a sub 17lb Mt. Bike. Maybe 20lb with a rigid fork. A22lb Ti. frame bike with a Rock Shox mag 21 for a 2" travel suspension fork was about as light as they got, (and not break). There was never a sub 17lb Mt. Bike made in production. Road bikes, yes, I think so.
By the way, I love a T-shirt that said, "We don't stop playing because we get old. We get old because we stop playing." :)
I don't know of many bike's that can't corner over my years of riding. But I do agree the newer frames take a lot less riding skill to corner out of the box. And for speed it's setup for the flow of the trails and your style of riding. I usually run 34 in the front 11-40 in the back my one Son runs 38 front, and 11-34 back the other Son run 36 , 11-40 and daughter runs 34, 11-36 in the back on our local trails here in Maryland.
Raising the bb height is a way to keep the bike turning reasonably well despite having a long fc and cs and a slack head angle.
I must say the geometry of about three to five years ago still feels best to me, 64-65 degree head angle, 435-445 reach in medium and 425-435 cs might keep you on your toes a bit more at speed but on my favourite kind of trails (mid speed, very steep and techy) it just clicks.
In my area there is limited elevation change (200 ft?), so no long downhills. Just rode a trail today that is very old school, reminded me of riding in the 90s. Natural tight terrain, no man-made features except bridges and erosion controls. Under these conditions and the other trails I use, the 69.5 degree head tube on my bike is great. The precision of the steering is so nice, making wheel placement on tricky roots and rocks very instinctual.
My point is that the bikes covered here are great on the terrain they're designed for. But off-road riding happens in many types of terrain, and I am glad there are still more upright bikes available for the kind of riding I do.
Right, but these slack head tube angles are just irrational today. 2 degrees from 69 is a huge difference, 9in co0rnering and stability), either way you go. We have to be rational consumers, or we can be sold anything just because it is change, or different. I want to see them go fast on a real clay off camber corner, and I would put them on a down hill course too, and watch the bike frames get rational again. I bet I can sell ape hanger handlebars to these chopper riding bikers for down hill berm riding. A more relaxed position is all I would have to claim. :) motocross did it right. They went steeper and steeper until the head shook, (my 88 Honda was notorious for it), and then they backed it off like one degree. My modern 29" Mt. Bike with a 69.5 deg head tube angle turns on flat ground like a bus compared to my 1995 Ti frame 71 degree 26" wheel bike, and one chain ring (I should have known better with just a little math) has pitiful top speed in comparison too.
@EarthSurferUSA
If I was younger (60s) and in better shape (getting there 🤠) the one by drive train would be getting to me also.
I have been cutting down my bars also. Pretty sure another inch or so is coming off soon.
Have a good one. 😎
No mention of XC bikes -- is that because they are still changing and that would muddy the conclusion? They may not be the most popular segment, but nor are downhill bikes
Great question Josh! Downcountry is still a young segment and we're watching with interest, and XC bikes seem to keep getting more aggressive! Definitely warrants some more investigation...
~ Will
@@bikeradar Wanna try some ape hanger handlebars? They offer a perfect relaxing ride. I bet you will love them. :)
Notice that progressive bike geometry is largely driven by bikes servicing the “gravity crowd”, where pedalling efficiency is not the priority. We now have super steep seat angles to help in climbing and 155mm cranks to avoid pedal strikes. For down-country and trail category, the complaints about pedal strikes are now standard for every bike. Yet many reviews focus on descending, where these bikes do excel, while sacrificing 80% of the riding experience where pedalling efficiency is important.
I built a “Downduro” from a Trek Session frame and suspension. Added a dropper post and an 11 speed drivetrain. It’s not the best at climbing…but it gets the job done and the decent is👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻
Now that sounds awesome! Good on you for building the bike YOU want to ride!
~ Will
I’ve done the same with an old 2010 specialized Trail SXII! Love that thing…
@@TwitchyFPV I ride it all the time love it
I'm still sitting here with a mid 90s Cannondale with a very steep head angle and low travel, absolutely rips on my local trails, I still can't imagine how the modern DH bikes would handle compared to it.
Pretty budget friendly setup. Killer V900, box four 1x8 transmission, Manitou Black 80mm air fork, 26x2.25 MSW Utility Player tires. Think it cost me like 300 to build?
Well, I suppose you won't know until you try...
Who knows, you may be missing out on both fun and speed.👍🏻🤷♂️
@@Dannyjones1that I could! It's just such a radically different setup that it'll take time to get used to. My love lays on tight, twisty trails with a lot of up and down so that pseudo-xc setup perfectly matched what I want.
90s was my prime. Trust me when I tell you- you are missing out. You only think you’re ripping because you have no point of reference. Doesn’t sound like you need one of the bikes this vid is about, but go try a modern, aggressive XC (the Downtcountry bike) or short travel trail bike something like the Santa Cruz Blur TR, Tallboy or 5010, or Ibis Ripley, or Pivot Trail 429, or Trek Supercaliber or Top Fuel. Not only do they rip faster but because they are more capable they are way more fun too. It’s not just geo changes in a vacuum, but everything that goes along with the geo changes- the shorter stem and wider bars, dropper seat posts and 1x drivetrains, disc brakes. It all adds up to a bike that goes faster, feels more confidence inspiring doing it because it is better at it, and way more fun. Go demo some modern bikes a couple weekends in a row. What do you have to lose?
Compared to your Cannondale, (a factory I interviewed at for a job with the motocross bikes back in 2001, but turned down the job offer), you would not be able to turn the modern slack bikes with out a berm. I have a 26" Ti frame, 22lb, 1995 Nuke Proof bike from back when I worked for them when NK was in Michigan, (a museum piece), that will out corner my Trek Marlin 7 like it is a school bus, and smoke that single chain ring in top speed. Wanna start a business selling ape hanger handlebars? All we have to say is they offer a more relaxed riding position. :)
@@Dannyjones1 I tried. I know. I can't turn this 29" wheel 69.5 head angle (steep today), Trek marlin 7 worth a crap on flat ground compare to my 95 bike. And the top speed of a single chain ring? Top speed is pathetic. I grew up with kids in the 80's who can run that fast (for a short period of time).
The Dave Yates D.O.N.K.I.S N.O.B😂 epic
Thank you for this material.
Back in 2018 I built a custom G16 (I’m 6’1”) 64ha 490 reach 445 chainstay 77 sta and a 350 bb hight as a 29er. It was and still is awesome.
And back then our Nicolai Geometron bikes were considered as unridable by most of the cycling media ;)
Not for cornering it is not. Not if you remember a bike that can turn well with out a berm, and did it.
@@EarthSurferUSA lol
9:25 Marino Bikes : * hold my welding rods !
Before watching the video: All I see is MTB's getting closer to dirt bike geometry like they should have been in the first place.
After watching the video: Yup, but disagree that they've hit the sweet spot.
Nice analysis! Although I do think that lately chainstays have been getting longer!
I agree, maybe there is another video in there somewhere!
~ Will
Woohoo! Future proofing all around! Dropper post - check, one-by drivetrain - check, modern geometry sweet spot - check! Rest assured, they will come up with something else we need.
No, you will buy anything they make with out thinking about it. Sorry. Slack head tubes are for the Hell's Angels, and we figured that out decades ago. We need to redefine "class action law suits" and sue our schools for teaching us to follow instead of think.
I don't like my single chain ring drive trail either, (I might like a dropper seat post, but have no problem with cross country down hills with out it). The top speed is pathetic, and the creeper gear is lower with more than one chain ring. I should have done some simple math before I bought a single ring bike, and I would have known better. I knew kids who could run (for a short distance), as fast as I can pedal that thing.
Just jump up a few teeth on the front chain ring and it will help. I went from a 2009 Rockhopper to a 2021 Fuse so I don't upgrade very often. I wanted to experience some of the latest tech for myself. And I only buy Alloy frames for the best value.@@EarthSurferUSA
@@EarthSurferUSA yo why's the 1x drivetrain so shit? I upgraded from 3x to 1x and it's got just enough range for me even though it's only 1x10 46 tooth. I agree it really doesn't matter as much as people say (like everything bikewise) but it's definitely an improvement in my eyes.
The MTB tech and geomtery peaked about 2012 with the IBIS SLR. After that, they had become more boring, wheelsize swollen.
And similar in DH. Luckily, I have my 2008 Santa Cruz Bullit. It is about 150-200 mm shorter than todays bikes and the handling so much better. Todays bikes are made for going sable in a straight line. They are good a that, but that is not my type of riding.
Compared to my 1995 26" wheel Nuke Proof 22lb, 71 deg head angle, 3" shorter, Ti. framed bike with a 80mm fork and 3 chain rings, (back when Nuke Proof was Michigan. I used to work there), my new 29" wheel Trek marlin 7 Gen 2 (with a super steep head angle of 69.5 degrees, for today but slack for me, and a 100mm fork), does not turn worth a crap on flat ground, and the top speed is pathetic. That long frame and 69.5 degree head angle, I would love for any of the downhill today. I think I will put some ape hanger handlebars on the market for these young YT guys to love, for "a NEW, more relaxing rider position". :)
You get good on what you use. Maybe you will find something that works better, but always chasing that perfect "tool" will just empty your bank account and leave you jaded. Perfect recipe for an internet know-it-all!
older 5010 = most playful bike? = perfect geo ;)
IMO the push to a longer/slacker/lower on short travel and XC bikes adversely impacts its a-typical surroundings. They are harder to weight the front end, requiring more leaning out of the saddle, than steering on when tackling challenging off/camber climbs. The benefits in descending, I don't think are translating in overall circuit or PR times... Also even this geo on 'trail' bikes, makes it a little less 'poppy', as a steeper and more weighted front end makes for much more natural J hops and ramping up lips of jumps.
Even though DH bikes do make jump lines look amazing, there is a reason why slope style bikes with 69 HTA are still purpose built.
Perfect geo for a pro rider may well not be ideal for the average rider.
I did not know the chopper Hell's Angles were pro riders. :)
But the question is still why. Not the specs.
What does the different angels earn or loose? Are you light and gain in stops and bumps or heavy and can power out of corners and deep shocks? Different bikes i presume?
Great questions Daniel. The eternal questions! We would love to do some experimentation on these subjects so stay tuned...
~ Will
Geometry is *always* a compromise. What anyone prefers is a matter of what they prioritise in their riding.
My newest bike (Orbea Laufey) is long, big and slack. 65,5 headangle hardtail with 140 mm damper. I like it. I am kind of sitting inside the bike, rather than on the top. That takes away fear of heights and feels supersafe declining. It is good both up , down and flat, and does cornering very well. Its my slackest bike.
Laufey isn't so long tough..
Nice moustache, dude!
👨🦰
~ Will
Like all things, moustaches included, things reach a point where they just become out of fashion and start to look ridiculous. 29'ers with super mellow headangles fullfil only one purpose and for everything else, are boring as hell to ride unless on the steepest of trails. Common sense, and not needing to have the lastest shiny bauble and be the cool kid will prevail. Mullets seem to be making a comeback, the wheel size, god help us if the hairstyle comes back. I think we will see 26-27.5 mixed wheel before long. You know, bikes that are actually fun to ride and engage the rider...
Well covered! You did miss Peak Mustache Geometry tho. Longer, lower, slacker?
Haha thanks Rob! Early indicators are that the twirl-angle will be steepening, and the tips will indeed be going lower as time goes on.
~ Will
I'm riding a Radon slide 160 from 2016 and to be honest it also isn't outdated, it runs on 27.5" wheels but thats actually advatageous on the twistier trails I ride.
only REAL Mtbrs ride 27.5. Old men ride 29S
I had a land line telephone. I know it is outdated,---but boy did it work better for clear and uninterrupted communication. My old 26" 1995 Mt. bike turns so well also, it makes these modern bikes look like a turning school bus on anything with out a berm.
You can do what ever you want, why does there have to be limits, if you want a “grim donut” 57 degree headtube with a 90 degree seat tube f it, go ride it…if you like it cool, doesn’t matter what the media or others think. Go ride, that’s it.
Great comment, we totally agree! Everyone has different preferences concerning what they like to ride, from singlespeed XC hardtails to Grim Donuts, it's all mountain biking! And this variety is one of the things that makes our sport so great!
~ Will
Pole Voima - zero BB drop - long, high and slack rides better than any bike I've had.
Yep! best bike ive ever ridden too
Nice recap of the evolution of modern mtb's. Personally, my idea of good geometry revolves around balance. Front to rear center lengths and the right wheelbase for what you are after. Achieving a long front center is possible via long reach or a slack head tube angle. Probably some differences in handling between the two approaches, but for me the important thing is how much is the distance between the two wheels and where the rider sits between them.
Agreed 👍
The bikes have gotten slacker as the trails have become wider and "flowy". You can't ride these bikes on narrow trails.They're 'stable' but can't turn worth a damn.
Well, there's will be geometry adjusting on-the-go thechnology sonn .
Sasha, get ready to have your mind blown! www.bikeradar.com/reviews/bikes/mountain-bikes/bionicon-edison-evo-0-review
The best bike ever: my nicolai nucleon st with my super monster. 300 mm of travel. State of the art. Rohloff, frank industries...
Sounds like an absolute beast 😍
~ Will
Lets put it to a real world test. I will take old man John Tomac on a 90's bike, and pit him up against anybody today on a modern slacker, on every kind of terrain that has ever been ridden on a Mt. Bike. Guess what bike is better for 95% of what we ride?
With "shaped skis", we overshot and then got back to something more sensible. In the mid 2000s, skis were extremely short and stiff with RIDICULOUS hourglass sidecuts.
Very interesting to see the development. Good job 💪🏾
Thanks Xaviar! 🙏
~ Will
Like solar panels trying to run a factory? If we the consumer are irrational----we will buy into anything. The Harley Chopper springer front end is the next thing that will be praised for Mt. Bike riding, because we are not rational enough to figure out it would be irrational. That is interesting, to a good psychologist, (which most are irrational also today), and also heart breaking. Trust me, the future for a citizenry who can think is going to be much better than the future for a citizenry that is irrational. How is your math? :)
E-bikes will usher in a whole new set of geometry changes I think
EVO actually falls into Enduro category according to your classification (150mm of rear travel) and was ridden at EDR this season.
Same with the 150mm Canyon Spectral, which was also ridden in EWS prior to the new Strive coming out.
The middle "All Mountain" category seems to have disappeared. Regarding the trail/enduro split, I'd argue that trail bikes are now 160F. Obviously there will still be outliers.
@@basstrom88 Yes! Also, we have Rhys Verner on 130mm Druid V2.
Ah you're so right! That's a great example. There does seem to be a grey area between trail and enduro bikes when it comes to rear wheel travel!
~ Will
Like most roadies I grew up with BMX and MTB and let me tell ya that the bike on thumbnail looks alien-like amazing! What frame is that?
Cheers!
Hi, and thanks for your comment! That's an Alutech Armageddon! What a machine!
~ Will
@@bikeradar I´m at their site now and it looks stunning, Thank you!
PS: btw Orbea Orca Aero, KTM Lisse and Giant Defy owner here!🙃
Roadies grew up with BMX and MTB? Then why was it in the mid 90's, when the roadies went Mt. Bike riding, they were only good (ummm, great actually), at climbing?
It was very easy to tell a roadie from a BMX or Motocross guy. Not only on the down hill and up hill trail, but the roadie would bag and carry their poop home. lol
i'll have do disagree. in the entire video there is no mention of the chainstay lenght, just as if everything on the back of the bike doesn't matter. in the last 10 years the chainstays have stayed more or less the same lenght while the rest of the bike got a lot longer. thats a big mistake and causes the bikes to feel really unbalanced. future bikes will have longer chainstays so you can ride the bikes in a more neutral bodyposition without loosing front end grip. we already see the longer chainstays on some bikes and im sure it will be more comon in 2-3 years.
Having a XL Downhill bike with less than 450mm chainstays is rediculous, these is realy no problem with chainstays 460mm and more when your bike has 500mm reach.
An excellent point! And we're seeing a trend now of manufacturers 'sizing' chainstays to match the reach of the bike.
~ Will
No such thing as "peak". Bikes change, trails change to adjust, and bikes and trails follow each other. Maybe geo has matched today's trails, but this is just temporary. E bikes will change trails substantially. Bike Geo will chase those trails.
Who knew ? A chopper from the 70's was a good downhill bike 😅
We knew,------better. Not anymore. :)
Yup. Everything is getting bigger and heavier
Low bottom brackets have been enabled due to 1x drivetrains. However, it makes technical climbing very difficult. FAR more pedal strikes on modern bikes. I really like my 2014 Tallboy LT (which was originally 3x10) for technical climbing. 343 mm BB height. 1164mm wheelbase make it easy to lift the wheel and easy on switchbacks. Of course, I put on a -1.5 degree angleset and longer fork to get the HTA down to the high 67 degree range.
I think modern mtb cranksets need to come stock with 165mm for most riders
Short cranksets are solving that problem , too bad manufacturers still spec 170-175 on most bikes :/
Agree, I'm still waiting for Shimano to make 155mm cranks then I'll upgrade, I have 170 mm on a size small :(
Agree on the tech climbing thing but disagree on why. Everyone talks about pedal strikes- I don’t get that. I mean timing pedals has always been part of the game going back to my first mtb in 1990. To me the problem is not pedal strikes, but rather the wheelbase length combined with the low bb means lots of bb strikes, especially on full sus bikes where your bb gets even lower under pedal power and when the sus is active, and because of the worse breakover angle.
@@dadventuretv2538 Yeah timing is obviously important...but it's way MORE important on newer bikes, which means that many time, you're not able to put power down when you need to. Breakover obviously doesn't help either. I think the older bikes like my Tallboy LT actually make better trail bikes (at least with an angleset to slack things out a bit). I rode my Tallboy back to back with a brand new Hightower and, although the Hightower was a better descender, the Tallboy was better at everything else. The frame weighs 1/3 less, too!
All very interesting but where did you get the light up mannequin helmet holder???
I miss my bandit. 68° point and shoot on the narrowest of trail and fast as hell downhill
according to dace and asto we will only peak when bikes will be sold in xl only and dual crown fork for enduro plus long chainstays to balance the long rech and slack headangle
I think geo is well defined within tight parameters according to your sizing. Those would be specific to the trails you ride. That'd be my impression. I doubt theres imrovements to be made in geo that are not minimal. Reach and such are out of reach. shorten up, and lower standover heights for everybody.
Эволюция 🎉
I'm predicting on the fly geometry adjustments at some point. Smart people, figure it out.
Exercise your brain, and you will get smart. After almost flunking HS myself, and later earning 2 engineering degrees in 8 years of study, I became the sharpest guy in the class. Those bastards running the HS told me to go for sports!!!! we only have one life, and it is human to think. I see so much potential we waste because of what my brain did. Here is a quote from Thomas Edison: "If we would do the things we are capable of, we would astound ourselves." What a great quote. Very true.
Hey Brendan, Bionicon have made a bike with on-the-fly geometry adjust! Read about it here... www.bikeradar.com/reviews/bikes/mountain-bikes/bionicon-edison-evo-0-review
Don't worry people. Soon the bicycle industry will invent new factors to focus the publics eyes. Remember, once they advertised the complicated new rear suspension designs. Papers and papers, and youtubers trying to advertise rear suspension as much as possible. Oh, that went well didn't it, after a while everyone realised that all designs had their pros and cons and not clear winner. Know they have emphasized on geometry and a new circle of advertisments began. And all forgot the suspension design. Let's see what they come up to next to focus our attention on.
Trek was late to the Enduro Slack and longer game and they still did not understand that if your reach grows you neet to put the seat more forward. Why do I see almost all Trek Enduro Sleds with max seat position forward? Because they suck in understanding what long low slack also needs. Steeper seat tubes ..
Trek was not a good example for the Enduro bikes. They only made their ST angle steeper now..
Most Enduro bikes are still to slack for the seatube for my liking. Do so many pedal on flat paved roads`? Dunno but the 161 from Privateer was almost perfect with that angle game...
I prefer the 2018~2020 geo 64~65 ha 42~44 offset 475~490 reach . These long slack bikes are bike park only . Doing 5~8 hour back country epic technical rides need a bike that pedals, climbs efficiently and rips downhills. I have a 2019 trek slash 9.9 and a new geo 2022 slash 9.9. The 2017 ~2020 geo is a great balance. Ride 8 hours next weekend win enduro race . The new geo is a heavy tank that rides like the brakes are dragging. Sold the 2022 and still ride race the 2019
The head tube geo is almost to the point of being a recumbent bike. As slack as a chopper. Starting to look goofy lol
Mondraker is the one who invented best geometry
Why are you showing a picture of the 2023 stumpjumper when you're calling it the 2023 stumpjumper evo?? 64.5 is the headtube angle of the evo 2021 0nward in neutral
Have we reach peak moustache size
Moustache trends video coming soon Graham 😉
~ Will
LONGER? WHY?
No god please. Lower YES but not LONGER
Its already hard with those full war ship downhill machines to manual because they are so long
i vote for testing shorter bikes with longer or higher or longer AND higher stems (aggain)
Naah.. longer but with higher bottom bracket. You will feel more in control and it is easier to lean the bike into a turn and really engage the sideknobs.
You can be in a neutral position on the bike with less risk of getting bucked. It will also climb well with less pedalstrikes.
480 reach, 77.5 seat tube, 63 head tube, 445 chainstay, 30 or less bottom bracket drop is a good geo for a size large trail/all mountain bike
wait until we have a tecnological breakthrough like a new drivetrain system or new suspension design or kinematics.
That what makes things interesting 🎉🎉🎉 (and unfortunately more expensive)
Motocross is living it, but not learning from it. Expensive technology does not help the sport when sales are 1/10th of what they once were.
Pretty sure Kona beat Mondraker on long low slack with the Process.
Get out and ride, its all smoke and mirrors /marketing hype for any rider with a modicum of talent, millimeters here and there and degrees plus or minus will not make an iota of difference
Totally agree. Too many people are bothered about having the latest greatest thing and actually forget about being connected to the bike and some feedback that involves you.
They just need to ditch the short chainstays and that's it.
I prefer a 62* HTA myself, having tried a few settings. (dh only) I also prefer not as long of a reach. Yes, it does feel more stable, but at the cost of flick-ability. Quick, snappy turns are better on shorter reach for me.
Try a Harley springer front suspension, because at that angle, those forks bending more than sliding. :) I say 69.5ha is slack for off road riding.
@@EarthSurferUSADepends on the gradient of the slope though..
What about the placebo effect? Consumers feel something different therefore it must be better. Yet they might not be any faster. What about cycling bodies fixing the geometry, so it's out of the hands of frame designers.
Actually, that is more like the "Hawthorn effect" I think. But I think both are out of context for what you are saying. "New" is often seen as "better". I bet this bloke never spoke to anybody on a land line. Frame design has been taken over by the art department. In fact, all productive "thinking" has been taken over by the art department IMO., so this generation will retire in poverty. Because with out productive thinking/doing, there is no prosperity. That is why our communistic federal government sent our production to communism in china, and push arts and crafts (or anything dysfunctional) in our schools of "anti-reason", which lead to slack head tube angels for a dirt bike.
@@EarthSurferUSA wow that turned political faster than a unicyclist on a switchback.
0:00 when calculus is exploited
What bike park is that with the perfect rolling tables?
That's La Fenasosa in Spain. The Foxy line is one of the best trails I've ever ridden! Take me back haha
~ Will
yeah, it's perfect to not being able to turn with such a wheel base
The modern "safety bike" layout has been around for 140 years. You'd think that we would've reached peak geometry about 100 years ago. How are we still figuring this out?
Because mountain bikes haven’t been around that long. And in the late 80s mtbs evolved from road bikes- the worst thing ever. It took a long time for the majority of manufacturers to throw out everything they knew about bikes from road biking and build a machine from the ground up specifically best designed for the different kinds of mountain biking.
@@dadventuretv2538 One might say it's paved roads that haven't been around that long. The first bikes were basically "gravel bikes". I wonder if the geometry on those was similar to modern mountain bikes
how do u manual a bike that long?
I'll have to defer to @astonmtb2428 on that question!
~ Will
Next MTB trend : monocycle ? 🤣
Still not worth and unjustified the price bike makers charge. A half dozen tubes welded together = $5000?!?!(or more) A Chevy Spark (which is a car) can be bought for $14,500 in 2023 ...20,000+ parts
My favourite bike is my 97 lavadome. Meh
How are bike companies going to sell new bikes if they're not better than current ones?
Tech. Just look at all the bs theyre now trying to say we need- live valve shocks, electronic shifters, automatic shifting, ABS. Up until now the changes made mtbs better- more capable and more fun, but they kept the essence of riding a bike. I think in 10-20 years time if the tech is bought into mtbing will be a different thing entirely with the only thing the same to what we are doing now being the pedal input.
grim donut
Longer means worse cornering...
.trails have turns lol
Commentary=low
Music=loud af
we reached peak bullshit years ago, sport of tryhards.
Every single geo works because human body is most adaptable bilogical unit. All else is bulshit.
You do not need geo,you need to adapt..
Conshumer? 😂
Sorry Oscar, got a little tongue-tied there 😜
~ Will
It‘s longer, lower, faster, stupid
Ride Nicolai 😂
They ugly, and heavy thats the problem with modern mtb’s
Pikebike did it first
The modern mnt bikes and Gary fisher design makes an ugly bike.
Enduro and DH should all move to Middrive gearboxes, belt drive, mullet with a high pivot rear suspension layot. Headtube angle around 64° with an inverted fork.
XC and trail should just agree to retire and let their lovechild "downcountry" 🤠🐄 take center stage. Let them continue to pay the derailer tax.
nothing handled better than an mb-1
grim donut