Hairy Posted January 9, 2019 Posted January 9, 2019 @1.73, that would be the ideal numbers for me too. Perhaps a slightly slacker STA of 75.5 for a longer horizontal top tube length, ideally around 610 mm. Low stack height and short uninterrupted seat tubes are way underrated for short people, which goes a long way to improve front wheel grip.Personally I like the "older" new school geo. When long and slack goes too far I find the bikes become very hard to ride (for me anyway). I'm by no means a hard charger, I enjoy techy riding, but I'm not fast, so a more responsive and snappier (slightly shorter) bike does it for me. Eg: on my Evil there is a high and low setting. In the high setting HA is around 66° - in that setting the bike is responsive, playfull, and just all around fun to ride. When switched over into the low setting (HA just under 65°) I find the bike to be an absolute chore to pedal around. When the trail points down the front wheel does not bite at all unless my weight is way over the front, the front wheel is floppy and lazy around corners, and it feels like I am trying to steer a farm gate around a corner. The only time I can say it is better is in a straight line at high speed - more stability. Now I get the appeal of the ultra long, low and slack bikes for someone that really rides hard and fast all the time - maybe someone that takes Enduro racing seriously. But for me, and I suspect the majority of weekend #endurobros the "old" new geometry hits the sweet spot between fast and stable, and play and poppy. This way you can still enjoy the bike at less than warp speeds.Just my 2c. It seems reviewers are also of this opinion when you read reviews of the SB150, Foxy, Pole, etc etc.Pinkbike had an "ideal geo" post the other day. For me I would have to go for 140mm rear, 150mm front, 65.5° HA, 77° STA, shortish chainstays, low stack height, 455mm reach, and enough room for a 150mm dropper; @1.78m tall (aka short).must say I also preferred the old banshee in the neutral setting vs the slack setting Dirt Tracker and Josh0 2
Grease_Monkey Posted January 9, 2019 Posted January 9, 2019 I thought the Following was a 67.4 in high and 66.8 in low? Either way I think there is too much attention paid to the HA and the SA numbers alone. It's all you hear talk of. The 'old' numbers of the Following V1 were good enough to make them come out with the MB and keep it virtually the same. I'd say the area of 66.5 is probably the perfect alrounder but it is about how the package works as a whole. Having said that the best bikes I've ridden and enjoyed the most for the trails here in SA are slightly more than that. Last 65 angle bike I rode was so hard to get any fun out of and that was touted as a quiver killer in the review. Which was done in Squamish. Which is no where near what we ride here. I think those are the geo numbers with a 120mm fork, I have a 140mm for fitted, so that slackens things out a bit. Crown to Axel is also makes a difference. The numbers I'm quoting there are my own measurements, and from memory, so could be a bit out. I do know that in the low (X-LOW) setting it was touching 65 on the HA side of things... But yeah, agreed - reviews of bikes tested in Squamish cannot necessarily be translated to our trails. We have a few trails that maybe come close, but if I am honest with myself I ride those trails very rarely, and when I do I'm way outa my comfort zone, so I can't buy/build a bike around that. Dirt Tracker 1
Grease_Monkey Posted January 9, 2019 Posted January 9, 2019 Part of the problem I found recently was I was running way too much sag. Pumping the shock up so that I am now on 30% ( yes my sag was way, way out) has helped hugely. Next, the flip chip thing. That does make a big difference. I had my sag set to somewhere between 25 and 30%, and then gained a bit of weight without changing anything on the bike. It didn't pedal so well for a while and I couldn't understand why - kinda chalked it up to me being less fit and the few extra kg. Then I saw I was bottoming out the rear, and sag was around 35%, put a few extra psi in, and presto - problem solved. Hairy and Dirt Tracker 2
Dirt Tracker Posted January 9, 2019 Posted January 9, 2019 I think those are the geo numbers with a 120mm fork, I have a 140mm for fitted, so that slackens things out a bit. Crown to Axel is also makes a difference. The numbers I'm quoting there are my own measurements, and from memory, so could be a bit out. I do know that in the low (X-LOW) setting it was touching 65 on the HA side of things... But yeah, agreed - reviews of bikes tested in Squamish cannot necessarily be translated to our trails. We have a few trails that maybe come close, but if I am honest with myself I ride those trails very rarely, and when I do I'm way outa my comfort zone, so I can't buy/build a bike around that. That makes sense I hadn't thought about that. I rode a friends one with a 140 fork on it and Jonkers. It was such a capable bike on all the trails and so fun in the high setting not sure slacking it out would give you much plus points. Sure it being a 29er helps on a 120mm rear end but that's the point, it's about the whole. Hell of a bike, you must be pretty happy. Grease_Monkey 1
Grease_Monkey Posted January 9, 2019 Posted January 9, 2019 That makes sense I hadn't thought about that. I rode a friends one with a 140 fork on it and Jonkers. It was such a capable bike on all the trails and so fun in the high setting not sure slacking it out would give you much plus points. Sure it being a 29er helps on a 120mm rear end but that's the point, it's about the whole. Hell of a bike, you must be pretty happy. It took me a while to get the bike where I wanted it in terms of set-up. I played around with the geo, stem length, bar width, fork travel, tyres, etc. quite a bit. Now that it is set up well (high setting, 140mm fork, 55mm stem (5mm spacer under stem), and 790mm bar) I am extremely happy with it. I don't think I am anywhere near the bike's limit, but my previous bike was a longer travel 29er than this, and I can without a doubt say I feel much more comfortable on the chunkier stuff, drop off, steep stuff on the Evil than my previous bike! The only place my old bike outperformed the Following is on the climbs - but not by a long way. I don't ever wish I had more travel - and that says alot when a 100kg+ guy is on 120mm of travel. Hairy and Captain Fastbastard Mayhem 2
stefmeister Posted January 10, 2019 Posted January 10, 2019 I think those are the geo numbers with a 120mm fork, I have a 140mm for fitted, so that slackens things out a bit. Crown to Axel is also makes a difference. The numbers I'm quoting there are my own measurements, and from memory, so could be a bit out. I do know that in the low (X-LOW) setting it was touching 65 on the HA side of things... But yeah, agreed - reviews of bikes tested in Squamish cannot necessarily be translated to our trails. We have a few trails that maybe come close, but if I am honest with myself I ride those trails very rarely, and when I do I'm way outa my comfort zone, so I can't buy/build a bike around that.I'm not always for over forking a bicycle as you mentioned, it slackens ALL the angles. While a slacker HT will not necessarily translate into a bad climber, it's the accompanied slackened STA that also shifts more weight over the rear wheel.The Following has a very slack actual STA, and if you have longer legs, it will result in all that weight being over the rear wheel.Personally, I think the slack HTA thing is a myth perpetuated by the XC crowd, which many of them still hold on to even though modern XC bikes are adopting the newer trends.My perspective on geo (relating more to climbing) is that there should be a relationship between fork travel, HTA, STA and reach. The further out the front wheel is due to either HTA, travel or both, the steeper the STA angle ought to be.Steeper STA shortens the effective top tube length, thus requiring more reach (i.e. longer wheelbase), so for XC race bikes etc it's not necessarily the answer, unless one goes back to longer stems. Odinson 1
Pipsqueak Posted January 10, 2019 Posted January 10, 2019 (edited) Part of the problem I found recently was I was running way too much sag. Pumping the shock up so that I am now on 30% ( yes my sag was way, way out) has helped hugely. Next, the flip chip thing.Funny, I've been toiling with this with my Pyga. One of the best things about a Pyga is the design should put you in the centre - a balanced position on the bike. I put a 160mm fork on my 120, and all of a sudden its a dog to pedal. The back doesn't sit up and its lost the pop that it had. I figure I'll drop the fork to 140 and play with spacers. Edited January 10, 2019 by Pipsqueak
Bos Posted January 10, 2019 Posted January 10, 2019 Funny, I've been toiling with this with my Pyga. One of the best things about a Pyga is the design should put you in the center - a balanced position on the bike. I put a 160mm fork on my 120, and all of a sudden its a dog to pedal. The back doesn't sit up and its lost the pop that it had. I figure I'll drop the fork to 140 and play with spacers.The longer the fork the slacker the seat angle, and the slacker the seat angle she more your bike sags, and once you start climbing, your weight goes even further back, and sags even more.. A travel adjustable fork really does make sense, although 140mm is a good compromise. I am using my middle setting on my FOX rear shock all the time now. Its actually become my normal setting, and on dirtroads I use the firm, which is almost lockout. Open only for downhills. The difference in sag between open and middle, is about 10% in my case. (5mm)
Headshot Posted January 10, 2019 Posted January 10, 2019 Funny, I've been toiling with this with my Pyga. One of the best things about a Pyga is the design should put you in the centre - a balanced position on the bike. I put a 160mm fork on my 120, and all of a sudden its a dog to pedal. The back doesn't sit up and its lost the pop that it had. I figure I'll drop the fork to 140 and play with spacers.You can counter the problem with a few other tweaks. Like slightly more air in the rear shock - i.e less sag/ and more sag i.e les air up front. Angling your seat nose down slightly - I do this on all my bikes for comfort reasons but especially on my dual sus bikes. As you climb your seat angle levels out and you're less likely to slip off the back of the saddle. If you're tall and can lower your bars by removing spacers under the stem, try that too. Grease_Monkey and Captain Fastbastard Mayhem 2
Yo-Yo Posted January 17, 2019 Posted January 17, 2019 New Strive. Looks good. MrJacques, Hairy and Meezo 3
Capricorn Posted January 17, 2019 Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) New Strive. Looks good. The recent Pinkbike review very politely slammed the geo. Seems steep ST newfangled geo is very catchy ... Edited January 17, 2019 by Capricorn
Yo-Yo Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 The recent Pinkbike review very politely slammed the geo. Seems steep ST newfangled geo is very catchy ...Yeah, but i’d view this as a longer legged trail bike rather than an out and out race bike. Pretty sure that market segment is quite small and they are more likely to sell more on these ‘conservative’ numbers to regular joes on regular trails. I know everyone believes that they need a massive reach, 78 seat tube and 64 head angle but it’s not always a good combo and dependent on the bike as a whole and most people don’t ride shuttled enduro tracks all day every day.
stefmeister Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 The recent Pinkbike review very politely slammed the geo. Seems steep ST newfangled geo is very catchy ...Somehow I have to agree. If you're going to complicate the bike with the shapeshifter, at least do it properly to allow best of both worlds. 65 - 67 HA would've been nice. Odinson and Captain Fastbastard Mayhem 2
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now