New LSG geometry and other developing problems

[davidlangebaan]

New LSG Geometry and other developing problems?

 

My first full-susser was a Giant Trance (26er!). My next one was an updated Trance, also a 26", about a 2011 model I think. I entered a few races and came nowhere.

 

The next year I got an Anthem 29. I killed it in the races (for me) compared to the previous year and went from a 50% finisher to a top 10-20% in a season. I didn't go down gnarly hills as fast as on my Trance but no one really dropped me by too much. And I flew uphill and on flats.

 

I stopped riding due to medical issues several years back and I'm now trying again. It seems that bikes like my Anthem (2012) with a 71 degree HTA have become obsolete and according to all reputable reviews are no longer fit to ride; they're so twitchy downhill that you might as well get off and push; anything 70 degrees or more is horsesh*t and has no place on a bike anymore.

 

And so what was once reviewed as a "light and nimble" and "great handling" is now no longer fit for the trails by today’s standards.

 

You know what? I loved that bike. I'd buy another one in a heartbeat. It seems to me that longer top tubes and slacker head angles require shorter stems and wider bars. Surely that makes it more difficult to keep the front down when riding up hills? I had an Ergofit done back then and they recommended a 608mm top tube and a 115mm stem (for a marathon setup). It worked for me. I never needed much more front wheel control than my Anthem provided. I needed more skill for sure.

 

Seat tube angles are also trending steeper, putting the weight more over the BB, but my Ergofit also recommended significant saddle setback, measured from the BB. I'm pretty sure physiology hasn't changed, so steeper seat angles move the saddle in the wrong direction for marathon/cross country setup.

 

My only complaint about the Anthem was the crappy, heavy wheels. I could never get my brake pads to consistently run freely until I did a minor upgrade to a set of entry level Rovals. To solve that problem now I apparently would also need Boost hubs and 142x12 rear axles if I don't want my wheels to behave like wet noodles. Mmm... I never bent or buckled a wheel back then. My rims seemed pretty much strong enough.

 

Is it all development or do the bike companies need new designs to sell more bikes? Are the differences too incremental for the average oke to feel? I’m sure they all add up and I'm sure Sauser and Schurter can feel the differences. A palooka like me? Probably not. If I go fast and don't crash I'm happy.

 

By the way I'm a fan of 1x systems. Not all development is bad. Although that wasn't really a development. My first bike in the 70's was 1x

 

 

[Grease_Monkey]

This has been discussed many many many times on the Hub. Everything progresses and moves on - much of it for the better, some of it unnecessary and gimicky.

 

Personaly I wider bars, shorter stems (I've been riding a 50mm stem since 2006), wider rims, Longer lower and slacker geo, and dropper posts are some of the best things to happen since mtbs were developed. Mtb is maturing as a sport and bike design no longer resembles road bikes adapted to go offroad.

 

No, your old bike won't explode if you ride it, but like all things progression happens and the current crop of bikes are simply amazing. Just get on one and ride it down a technical piece of trail then get on an old mtb and do the same - I can't see why anyone would want to go back...

[TIB]

It started in the early eighty with Mac- and Kolaski's going from hollow to foam-injected, followed by the raise of windsurfing, every year something new,better faster more radical. Then I left all that weekly changing best practice, keeping up with the Jones's and decided on settled technology.

 

Thus I bought a mountain bike in 1992...... I long for the simple days of the eighty's

 

What I have learned, ride the bike that makes you feel fast/happy/fulfilled/comfortable. The rest are just details.

[Grease_Monkey]

Oh and as for wheels - they are bigger in diameter therefore they need wider hubs to be built to the same strength as 26ers were. And the average palooka (being slightly heavier), feels the noodle effect of skinny forks and flexy wheels much more than Schurter and Sauser...

 

Without progression we would all still be on Penny Farthings. We all just see and feel the progression from when we started cycking and bought the state of the art bike of the time... the bikes some of us long for (80s, 90s, etc etc) were at a time also progressed past the point of what most thougut necessary then. There was a time cyclists debated whether the average Joe needed suspension forks. It's all relative.

 

One thing is certain, bikes will keep progressing, keep getting better, probably past the point of necessity, but I am happy about that and love the new tech aspect of cycling almost as much as I love riding...

 

Buy into what you find helpfull, skip over the fads.

Edited July 19, 2018 by I_my_own_bike

[davidlangebaan]

It started in the early eighty with Mac- and Kolaski's going from hollow to foam-injected, followed by the raise of windsurfing, every year something new,better faster more radical. Then I left all that weekly changing best practice, keeping up with the Jones's and decided on settled technology.

 

Thus I bought a mountain bike in 1992...... I long for the simple days of the eighty's

 

What I have learned, ride the bike that makes you feel fast/happy/fulfilled/comfortable. The rest are just details.

Yep, I did the windsurfing thing and bought my first MTB in the early 90's as well. A Bridgestone MB2. I guess things have moved on.

[PhilipV]

Let's be honest, if you are only riding marathons or gravel roads, then any bike will do. And contrary to what the interwebs says, you won't crash and burn on it. It's on the rougher trails and XCO courses where the longer slacker bikes make a difference.

 

I've been riding for 18 years, and ran the full spectrum of fashion and geometry changes. Recently I build up a frame from 2003 to replace a more modern frame that cracked. After four months I stripped it again to build everything onto a new frame with newer geometry. The 2003 frame wasn't crap (in fact in 03 it was blisteringly fast,) but the new geometries are just so much better. And you only notice the difference that new geos make when going back to old tech.

 

So ja, your Anthem will still work fine, but the modern bikes really are that much better.

[PygaSchmyga]

New LSG Geometry and other developing problems?

 

My first full-susser was a Giant Trance (26er!). My next one was an updated Trance, also a 26", about a 2011 model I think. I entered a few races and came nowhere.

 

The next year I got an Anthem 29. I killed it in the races (for me) compared to the previous year and went from a 50% finisher to a top 10-20% in a season. I didn't go down gnarly hills as fast as on my Trance but no one really dropped me by too much. And I flew uphill and on flats.

 

I stopped riding due to medical issues several years back and I'm now trying again. It seems that bikes like my Anthem (2012) with a 71 degree HTA have become obsolete and according to all reputable reviews are no longer fit to ride; they're so twitchy downhill that you might as well get off and push; anything 70 degrees or more is horsesh*t and has no place on a bike anymore.

 

And so what was once reviewed as a "light and nimble" and "great handling" is now no longer fit for the trails by today’s standards.

 

You know what? I loved that bike. I'd buy another one in a heartbeat. It seems to me that longer top tubes and slacker head angles require shorter stems and wider bars. Surely that makes it more difficult to keep the front down when riding up hills? I had an Ergofit done back then and they recommended a 608mm top tube and a 115mm stem (for a marathon setup). It worked for me. I never needed much more front wheel control than my Anthem provided. I needed more skill for sure.

 

Seat tube angles are also trending steeper, putting the weight more over the BB, but my Ergofit also recommended significant saddle setback, measured from the BB. I'm pretty sure physiology hasn't changed, so steeper seat angles move the saddle in the wrong direction for marathon/cross country setup.

 

My only complaint about the Anthem was the crappy, heavy wheels. I could never get my brake pads to consistently run freely until I did a minor upgrade to a set of entry level Rovals. To solve that problem now I apparently would also need Boost hubs and 142x12 rear axles if I don't want my wheels to behave like wet noodles. Mmm... I never bent or buckled a wheel back then. My rims seemed pretty much strong enough.

 

Is it all development or do the bike companies need new designs to sell more bikes? Are the differences too incremental for the average oke to feel? I’m sure they all add up and I'm sure Sauser and Schurter can feel the differences. A palooka like me? Probably not. If I go fast and don't crash I'm happy.

 

By the way I'm a fan of 1x systems. Not all development is bad. Although that wasn't really a development. My first bike in the 70's was 1x

really nicely written and some proper points to ponder.  Its amazing how we get caught up in the increments that we don't notice what is going on over time - looking back some times can be useful.  Noice!

[porqui]

Just go out and ride.

 

Oh go tjoepless first though.