[Closed] Cy's Longshot Podcast

I saw it promo-ed this morning and was hoping they might discuss chainstay length in relation to 27 and 29.

I'll listen to it on the dog walk and weigh in later with my geometry geek/keyboard warrior verdict.

Great. Looking forward to it. I love a bit of geometry geekery 🙂

He does mention longer chainstays being better, but there is no real discussion of the differences between 27.5 and 29 in that (or any) context. It almost sounds as though all the development work for the new geometry was done on the rocket, then ported to other bikes in the range.

He does mention that they tried the rear end from the flaremax on the rocket, but it was too long. So, is it too long on the flaremax too and if not, why not?

Interesting, though I found his explanations of why he thought the changes had the effect they did somewhat unintelligible.  Sounds like good old trial and error at work there.

Yes, it's interesting that even an engineer's description of the process seems to come down to "we tried X and liked it, then we tried Y and didn't like that etc". Not that I expected differential equations but maybe a bit more on the logic behind it.

Well I say interesting. The silence on this thread would suggest that long discussions on the design process aren't everyone's cup of tea, which is fair enough.

They did seem to spend a lot of time talking about the advantages of a short stem, which seems to be the driver for the whole thing. I don't have a problem with that. I've been using a 35mm stem on 29ers and fatbikes for a couple of years as I like they way they feel. But that's on bikes with head angles around 68 degrees and a reach around 450mm. I'm still not sure why going 30mm longer and two degrees slacker would be better.

 “we tried X and liked it, then we tried Y and didn’t like that etc”. Not that I expected differential equations but maybe a bit more on the logic behind it.

Which is at odds with the geomgeeks who can tell you what a bike rides like based on a bit of paper 😉

If the bike designers and builders keep going back to make ride tweak and try then the less I care about the to the mm chain stays and fractions of a degree angle and more about the try.

I've not listened to the podcast yet. I am also curious about the difference in the length of the stays on the 29 v 27.5. I'd assumed it was necessary to get the clearance for the travel given that the seat tube isn't that heavily manipulated. I am probably wrong, though.

I'm also interested in his thoughts on shorter fork rakes. Especially any difference in handling/steering between the McQueen (46mm) and the Pike that they are now offering that I guess has a 51mm offset. I remember reading in the newsletter first featuring the longshot that they preferred a steeper head angle to those used on the geometron. I am interested in anyone else's thoughts on this topic, too.

I enjoyed listening to Cy, it’s good to hear he questioned his previously held views and discovered things he wasn’t expecting.

I think we’ll see the longshot geometry rolled out across a lot more Cotic bikes.

I think Cy said that a bike feels more confident descending if the stem is shorter than the fork offset (eg. 35mm stem on a fork with 46-51mm offset). Therefore you feel more behind the front wheel.

I do wonder how fork offset affects handling, but most of us aren’t going to be buying several forks to try different offsets.

Bars behind the front axle seems to be the determining factor, therefore increased fork offset and short stems.

I enjoyed it. Nought wrong with tried and tested R&D in my book.

For me, I Iiked the explanation of how it worked as a package rather than just a HA or reach figure being touted as the next big thing/what you need.

The new Cotics look great.

Regarding the geo, I always find it strange that companies aren't going way beyond the extremes for testing purposes. No wonder we always get very small advancements. I know part of it is down to customer conservatism (look at the reaction to the new Nomad, and Marin Wolf Ridge), but It can't help that most frames are built in Asia with all the associated lead times and delivery times.

Thank goodness we have people who can make things themselves to test out like Zerode, BTR, etc and people to push the boundaries like Clay Porter, Rob Metz, etc.

Mondraker really were well ahead of the game here, but seem to have lose their momentum once Barel left. When things are different, they need a voice to champion them I guess (see Clay Porter lol).

Thankfully there are still some innovators out there, even though loads of interesting companies have fallen by the wayside. Some previously innovative companies are getting more conservative as they grow - see Knolly, Ibis, Evil.

RIP Brooklyn Machine Works, Balfa, Xprezo, Honda, Maverick, etc
Good luck to Pole, Lauf, Zerode, BTR, Marin, Polygon, Robot, ARBR, Empire etc

AlexSimon

look at the reaction to the new Nomad

Honestly think most of the negative reaction to the Nomad was down to the awful colour scheme.

Honestly think most of the negative reaction to the Nomad was down to the awful colour scheme.

I guess we'll see. The other colour - the blue - is lovely

It's not the colour, it's the fact that the new Nomad's fugly.

I like my old one much better 🙂

I enjoyed it. Liked the honest, open & humble way he explained the design evolution.

I’m still not sure why going 30mm longer and two degrees slacker would be better.

He was basically saying (I think) that the extra reach is to compensate for the longer stems most people were running, plus a bit more for stability. The head angle adds more stability and he described the benefits of the long & slack bits in his riding anecdotes.

Of course they may not be better for you, but to understand if they would be you'll need to ride some longer bikes rather than thinking about it.

On the chainstays issue, I heard it a different way to you RP. Seemed he was saying the combo of the long 29er stay and 63deg HA was too much for him. Not just the long rear.

It's possible that they've gone as long on the chainstay as they feel customers will be comfortable with on the 27in Rocket - as smaller wheel riders can be a bit more conservative, or prefer a more "playful" bike.

I thought it was a good listen to be honest. I’d say that the geometry development was a bit more scientific in choosing why they changed or tried what they did, than point and shot. I just think it was sanitised a bit for better listening or viewing!!

I was really intrested in how he how he found that the much longer Geo was too extreme for him and others to really get the most out of, and it was paired back to get the current designs. I’m really excited by the Geometron concept, but Ive worried if I’d not ride it at the level needed to get the most out of it. I would also wager that Cy is a much better / braver rider than I am so maybe it’s a leap too far, and the longer but more conservative Geometry is a better suit.

( I’d love to ride them both to see however!!)

He was basically saying (I think) that the extra reach is to compensate for the longer stems most people were running,

That was my take, but since I've been running 35mm stems for a while anyway I guess that isn't relevant for me.

plus a bit more for stability. The head angle adds more stability and he described the benefits of the long & slack bits in his riding anecdotes.

Of course they may not be better for you, but to understand if they would be you’ll need to ride some longer bikes rather than thinking about it.

Fair point 🙂 It's fun to pontificate, but only riding will really answer my questions.

On the chainstays issue, I heard it a different way to you RP. Seemed he was saying the combo of the long 29er stay and 63deg HA was too much for him. Not just the long rear.

It’s possible that they’ve gone as long on the chainstay as they feel customers will be comfortable with on the 27in Rocket – as smaller wheel riders can be a bit more conservative, or prefer a more “playful” bike.

I suspect there is a fair bit of that (plus maybe the fact that they can't make the 29er chainstays any shorter anyway). We are a strangely conservative bunch.

Cheers for listening guys. I really appreciate it. Some interesting points, which I'll try to cover. The main issue with the podcast is that we wanted to keep it to a sensible length. I could have talked for another hour at least! Hence a few shortcuts.

Regardings the FlareMAX - I was hoping the idea for going with Longshot on the FlareMAX would be explained by the chat about the Soul. The fact that we went too far the other way trying to make a light and lively steel hardtail work with the geometry, finding the other end of the short stem envelope and it needing a certain slackness of head angle to balance it out, that experience all directly informed the geometry of the FlareMAX. Also, you might have missed it, but a lot of what I was talking about with the more recent testing is in regard to making the 29er bikes work and the upcoming (in the summer) RocketMAX in particular. The FlareMAX and RocketMAX are quite closely related, and we used shorter forks and some different shock mounts and other tweaks to develop the geometry of both bikes in parallel. The FlareMAX hit first simply because of stock levels and production cycles. You're right though, it is probably the more radical bike given its category. The point I was trying to make through the whole thing is that this geometry idea works for all mountain bikes for all riders. That's why we are applying it to everything from the Soul to the Rocket and the 29er bikes too.

Chainstay length - there's a subtlety here which I did miss to explain. Because of their smaller wheels and shorter forks, a 27.5" wheel bike will have a shorter front centre than a 29" wheel bike if that have the same fork travel and reach. The steering axis of the 29er simply has further to travel to the floor than on the lower front end 27.5" bike. So, this is the reason why you need very slightly shorter chainstays on the 27.5" bikes, to keep the weight balance. The new 27.5" Longshot bikes are 437mm chainstay (slightly longer than before). The new MAX bikes are 448mm. The difference in front centre length ( like for like) is about 12mm more for the 29ers, so the longer rear end is very slightly moving the weight balance forward compared to the 27.5" bikes, but not by much. After that other considerations like tyre and chainring clearance influence things too.

I agree there was quite a lot of 'feels' and maybe not much maths, but to be honest this is a lot of what this project has been about. Getting too comfortable with the numbers breeds this tiny iteration process. I needed to ride and feel the bikes, get feedback from others, check some timing, then come back to the numbers and try and understand what is going on. The physics of bicycles moving across dirt is something no one fully understands. It's incredibly complex.

Feel free to ask any other questions. I drop back in now and then to answer.

The "bars behind the front axle" part particularly intrigued me.  First off, the bars are always going to be way behind the front axle horizontally, so I assume he meant "measured in a direction perpendicular to the steerer", so your stem has to be shorter than your fork offset.  Which means a short stem, so this statement is roughly equivalent to saying short stems are good.  What the mechanics might be that make stem length relative to fork offset a particularly important dimension is a matter of conjecture.

The trend to slack angles and low fork offsets (Transition and Geometron) is also interesting, and again the reasoning why it works looks a bit arm-wavy (see what Transition say about it),  That is going to result in a large trail figure and very high flop, but some folk clearly like it.

"He did mention that it was harder to make this geometry work for a 29er"

This why the Solaris is taking a looong time to come into stock dya reckon?

My post crossed with your's cy apologies for calling you "he" there.

So you have prioritised stem shortness and head angle followed by front/rear weight distribution as the key things affecting handling.  I say that because other ways of dealing with the inevitable extra out-frontness of a 29er wheel whilst keeping front/back weight distribution would be to shorten the frame and lengthen the stem, or to keep the stem and frame length, but steepen the head angle.  (When 29ers came in, and before we had 650b, the reason for giving them steeper head tubes was said to be to keep the same trail for a given fork offset.  But it would also have brought the front wheel back a bit.)

My own hapennyworth is that short stems and steep angles make twitchy steering.  I am sure I recall long stems being said to help with stability back in the day when bikes were shorter and steeper and bars were narrower, and I can kind of see that as with a long stem your hands will have to move sideways as well as fore-and-aft as the steering moves.  But if you have bags of stability from the large trail numbers we now have, you don't need that.  Plus, if you have a lovely modern 120mm+ travel fork on the front, it isn't such a problem taking a bit more weight through your hands.  I haven't tried it, but I imagine a long and slack rigid bike would be a bit of a bastard.

The stem length vs fork offset is an interesting one.

Actually, one question about fork offset - is that measured parallel to the ground or perpendicular to the steerer axis?

I see there being a more important measurement than stem length with regard to steering feel, and that's effective stem length. This is the stem length minus the bar backsweep at the centre of the grips. With a 35mm stem and typical bars the effective stem length is converging on zero. It's this distance that determines the tiller effect that increases stability and self-centreing when you weight the bars. If this goes negative (even shorter stems and wider and more swept bars) then weighing the bars decreases stability.

That leaves me thinking that this concept of stem length being shorter than fork offset isn't actually what matters. But what then does?

Bar width is also a contributor to steering feel. And obviously head angle, tyre diameter and fork offset are. And tyre mass and contact patch shape/stability.

I'm currently flitting between a hardtail which is 67 deg HA, 750mm bars, 35mm stem, 455mm reach and a full-sus which is 63.7 deg HA, 810mm bars, 50mm stem, 425mm reach, with the same wheels and tyres and 150 and 160mm forks respectively (42mm offset I believe). Very different steering feels - one feels light and quick, the other feels stable and unstoppable. (All measurements at sag).

But the hands are in almost the exact same place longitudinally vs the front wheel (shorter stem and steeper head angle vs longer stem and slacker) and the front centre measurements are very similar (longer reach and steeper head angle vs shorter reach and slacker head angle).

i thought people like whyte were using smaller offsets of forks to improve handling where as this seems to suggest that it could be a disadvantage?

Feel free to ask any other questions. I drop back in now and then to answer.

Is the standard flare getting the longshot treatment? When do you expect stock will land?

I ride a big bike and love it so this is interesting to read. I'll listen to the podcast when i get a chance.  Are there plans to release a new rocketmax? if so, it could be  my next frame!

Regardings the FlareMAX – I was hoping the idea for going with Longshot on the FlareMAX would be explained by the chat about the Soul.

Thanks Cy. To be fair, the discussions about the Soul should have answered my questions as it shown that you think the new geometry also works for a shorter travel XC bike. I guess I'm just hung up on the 27.5/29 difference so wanted to hear more about the 29er.

I'm also assuming that the launch dates are related to the development process. The FlareMax is out now but the RocketMax will be a few more months. So, I assumed that meant you were still working on the RocketMax and was concerned that you might discover things about the geometry on 29ers that would improve the FlareMax too. But it sounds as though you did the development of those two in parallel and the launch date has more to do with the levels of existing stock than the development cycle. Who'd be a bike maker 🙂

Presumably you'd accept that it is harder to throw these longer bikes around (wheelie, manual, bunnyhop etc), but that's just the price you pay for extra stability?

"Presumably you’d accept that it is harder to throw these longer bikes around (wheelie, manual, bunnyhop etc), but that’s just the price you pay for extra stability?"

I find it easier to manual my full-sus than my hardtail (431 vs 420mm chainstays) because it takes less subtlety of movement!

I really enjoyed it (watched it last night).

I've no idea about geometry but it's mega interesting to hear from folks who do, and I thought the explanation in plain English of how it works and how that translates to rider experience was really insightful for someone like me.

If I had the budget I'd be on the phone to talk about what would work for me well, and they would likely have my money.

The BIG question is - if the RocketMax is due in the summer

- When is the out of stock Solaris Max going to arrive?

In answer to general "is this being released soon" questions, the whole range will be going Longshot eventually, but not until later in the year.

Offsets is actually something I didn't do too much with as there were so many other variables flying around. It also helped that the X Fusion Sweep and McQueen are both 46mm offset so that was same between wheel sizes.

It doesn't follow that just because the stem is shorter than the fork offset it will handle - so a 100mm stem with a 120mm fork offset would be awesome - it wouldn't. It would be a floppy, ill handling mess. What I'm saying is shorthand for 'shorter than fork offsets as they are are generally settled upon'. I have run 42mm, 46mm and 51mm offsets on my 29er, and whilst personally I prefer 46mm, 51mm is good, and with respect to the FlareMAX actually works really well because the head angle isn't that extreme. The whole wheel flop thing with 51mm offset starts to manifest at very slack head angles, and I definitely noticed a slight tendency for this when I was first testing 160mm on the 29er this summer. The easy way to test was to dig out my Pike version 1 forks from a couple of years ago, set them 160mm and have a go. These are 51mm offset. They are very responsive around the straight ahead, but on the slacker head angles (getting into the 64s) there is a point where the front wheel moves quite quickly, but then once it's there it is very 'set' and stable. I know some people with Geometrons and 51mm offset forks who really like this stable 'locked in' feel. With a short stem and wide bars (I run around 770 across ends of the grips) it's easy enough to pick the bike up again, but personally I prefer the more consistent feel of a slightly shorter offset. All the Lyrics we have had in stock for the RocketMAX since we certified it for 160mm forks have been the 'new hotness' 42mm offset because we have access to them OE and felt for the RocketMAX they would be better than the 51mm offset. Having ridden them, I don't feel a massive difference between them and 46mm offset X Fusions, but I do prefer the more linear steering response of the shorter offset. It's not good or bad really, it's just preference. The other thing that helps with 51mm offset is it that I don't put as much steering input into a long bike, because it encourages and rewards really angling the bike to get the cornering done.

As for manouverability, bunnyhopping is no problem, it's just a matter of timing. And as mentioning above, although you have to pull a bit harder to get up into a manual or wheelie, once you are there, the longer rear ends and more central weight position make the balance point much wider and more friendly. I'm crap at wheelies, but I'm better on my Longshot.

Another point I didn't make about the long bikes about the confidence is also that when riding in super steep terrain like at Revs or Golfie, the length of the bike means that the angle it gets to when dropping the front wheel off things isn't as extreme as a short bike, which also adds to the feeling of security.

SolarisMAX 'should' be next month. Frame builder is being a bit capricious at the moment though, hence the radio silence until a firm date.

I am confused again, I thought higher fork offset leads to lower trail and thus lower flop.

Anyway, flop-wise I put an angleset in my Transition Bandit to see what the effect was and though I like it, one downside is the low speed handling (I mean really low walking pace).  On slow technical climbs, say when the front wheel is going over a root and you have almost slowed to a standstill, the steering wants to flop over when I want to go ahead, it definitely takes more keeping control of than with a steeper head angle.  But going a bit faster, even quite slow tight woodland stuff, it feels fine.  Originally I found the difference in feeling between that and my 29er Scandal un-nerving, the steering on the latter felt a bit like a car where the power steering is off, but after a few rides I got used to it and stopped noticing it (most of the time).

Really looking forward to getting my Large Rocket frame 🙂

I tried one of the new long-shot FlareMAX’s this afternoon (currently own a Mk1 FlareMAX).  Demo bike was medium, my own bike is large with 50mm stem.  I was interested in trying the medium, as I quite like an upright seated position and the ‘chuckability’ of a smaller bike - but I guess I wasn’t getting the full advantage of the long-shot geometry on the fast descents with the medium frame.  However, it was an interesting ride - not a massive difference in feel to my current bike, but I really liked the steering feel on the long-shot with the 35mm stem, which worked much better than my current bike when fitted with a 35mm.  Don’t know what I was expecting of the new geometry, but it felt very normal and intuitive, and to me, it felt like it really suits the FlareMAX - easy to pop the front up over puddles, rock step-ups etc., and the chainstay length works well on steep climbs.  I took the bike down a proper steep, muddy, trials tech descent and it felt great.....especially after I heard a couple of old ramblers say “he’s never gonna ride that is he?!” 😁   I’ll be interested to try one of the new FlareMAX’s in large.

Thanks @bowglie, that's interesting. I guess if you size down the numbers don't look so radical. A medium FlareMax is really just a couple of degrees slacker than some other short travel 29ers, with the other numbers being similar. But, as you say, are you really getting the full "advantage" of the new geometry if you do that?

My brother bought one as well, he actually sized down to a small even though he is on the cusp of a Large - he comes from a BMX and DH background so loved the short seat tube combined with the reach of a large 2015 Capra. As he can only have one bike, he wanted a trail bike and something that can be used as a playbike /almost a slopestyle bike at Wharncouver or a BMX at pump tracks.

The guys that like to send it big and play around on the bikes seem to like shorter bikes, those of us who need a bit more confidence or want to eek out a few milliseconds on a track seem to up size.

My guess is now that a lot of bikes are going very long, slopestyle bikes will go through the same thing that all-mountain bikes did and evolve - demand is going to go up for shorter flicky bikes that will drive the evolution of a new genre of bikes.

@bowglie good info - couple of quick questions if you don't mind please. How tall are you riding the medium? Was the demo 27.5+ or 29er? I'm hovering over the Cotic order button for a large FM with 35mm stem, I'm 179cm with long legs, short torso, long arms - so medium seat tube seems very low compared to my current bikes in 475mm range.

“I’m 179cm with long legs, short torso, long arms – so medium seat tube seems very low compared to my current bikes in 475mm range.”

I’m the exact same height and I’d describe my proportions similarly - my bikes have 440 and 430mm seat tubes. I’ve had a 125mm dropper on the 430 without having a problem getting the saddle high enough and now have a 170mm dropper on there (which a much longer seat tube wouldn’t allow).

I’m 184cm tall with 86cm inseam and it was the 29er I tried.  Just to get a feel of how the suspension on the FlareMAX compared to the RocketMAX, I also tried a medium 29er version of the latter (current non-longshot version).  Suspension wise, I didn’t have enough time to get the suspension setup on the bikes similar enough to give a direct comparison.  However, geometry wise, I felt that the medium RocketMAX was definitely too small for me, and my large non-long shot FlareMAX feels way more confidence inspiring.  (I bottled out of a sketchy tech descent that my current bike feels super confident on).

To qualify my comments, I should mention that I’m a fairly creaky 56yo, and following shoulder surgery a couple of years ago, I can struggle to get a comfortable seated riding positions on bikes - so I’ve found that (in general), I have to make compromises in bike sizing and setup to compensate.  The latter might explain why, when I’m seated, I feel slightly stretched out on my current large FlareMAX when running a 50mm stem - but this is a compromise I’m willing to make, as the bike handles so well with that length stem as soon as I’m up on the pedals. Speaking of which, I think the geometry, handling and suspension on my current bike is stunning, especially when running the Cane Creek shock - it is very nearly as quick down Peak descents as my Spesh Enduro 29!  (Geometry on my current FlareMAX feels more confidence inspiring than large E29).

Because of my peculiar set up requirements, I did find the sizing of the medium longshot FlareMAX a bit more comfortable than my current bike when seated - but perhaps not enough overall performance advantage to replace my current FlareMAX, as the latter feels better on fast descents, and when grabbing a little bit of air:)  If money was no object, I’d get a medium longshot FlareMAX just for messing about on trials-ey type stuff (it was great fun popping up  balancey super tech climbs - so easy to loft the front wheel (nearly looped out the first time I tried manualling it)), and keep my current large FlareMAX - although, as luck would have it, my wife’s is demoing a medium FlareMAX, so I might be doing a sly sales pitch😉

Just out of interest, I’d like to have a back to back demo of a new large FlareMAX and my current bike - Hopefully this is something I might do this weekend, as Cotic have a demo weekend at Calver on Sat and Sun (if I do, I’ll post an update👍)

@bowglie - It's interesting that you find your current (large) FlareMax better on descents than the (medium) current version. Looking at the geometry charts and assuming that you have the saddle and bars in the same position on both bikes, the only real difference is that the new bike is 1.5 degrees slacker, which should make it a bit more stable on fast descents. Could it be that the bars were lower on the demo bike than on yours and that was what made it feel a bit less secure on the descents?

Of course, that does mean that you could stick a -1.5 degree headset in yours and give it to your wife 🙂

Do report back after trying the large flaremax, seems like we're currently on similar sized bikes so it'll be interesting to hear what you make of the longer version.

Yes, I'd be particularly interested to know whether you find it significantly harder to pop the front end up on the large bike, since it wasn't a problem for you on the medium.

When I took the Large longshot FlareMAX for a ride… I found getting the front up "easier" than my own bike, despite it never lifting on steep climbs etc.  It needs a bit more body English to start the lift, but then it is far easier to control, and feels like it can't go wrong… presumably that's to do with where you weight sits on the longer bike. I dunno.

For me the LLS design means I can ride a small, medium or a Large due to the standover (I'm 5' 8")  and choose which reach feels best for my riding - brilliant!

At the moment I'm on a Nukeproof Mega - large 460mm reach = Medium new Rocket and it feels good, however the other day I was at the Cotic warehouse trying a new rocket and I was surprised how much easier the small Rocket was to chuck around, manual and hop than the medium Rocket (a similar size to my large Mega).

I will now wait to test the small on some proper rides to see if the reduction in length equates to it feeling less "safe" when descending steep terrain, if so I'll be down sizing to a small Rocket - as so far I think it's spot on.

I wonder - did Chris Porter sell us a marketing pitch "Long, Longer, Longest"?

The Cotic is more "Normal, long and longer"

Just my thoughts!

Sorry. Should read - if not, I'll be down sizing.

It's interesting the different experiences of how easy these bikes are to move around.

@kelvin says:

When I took the Large longshot FlareMAX for a ride… I found getting the front up “easier” ...

Then @cyclelife says:

I was surprised how much easier the small Rocket was to chuck around, manual and hop than the medium

I don't doubt that both are right, but I wonder why their experiences are different. Maybe it comes down to the technique you use on your current bike and whether that translates to the one you are testing or not. Maybe it is just the way they are setup. It brings me back to my hobbyhorse about the limited value of test rides. Sometimes you don't get on with a bike straight away but if you change the way you ride to suit the bike (after time) you then find you love it.

I can't see how a larger bike can be easier to throw around than it's smaller sibling,. In my opinion the longer bike (more stable) is more of a help to less confident riders, especially when the terrain gets steep.

My "easier" was in quotes deliberately, and if you read my clarification that immediately followed it, you'll see that it doesn't contradict what @cyclelife is saying. I expect that I fall into their "less confident riders" category… no doubt about that at all!

Yes, I definitely feel safer on my long geometry Mega compared to my old Nomad 2, however the small Rocket just felt so good in the car park test, won't know until I've taken one down some old school steep tracks in Wharncliffe to see if it works for me.

This will also give me an idea of how much the head angle/short stem and fork offset make compared to just extra reach and wheelbase.

Sorry @kelvin I wasn't deliberately trying to misquote you there, just trying to keep it brief.

I think the logic is that it takes a bigger movement of your body (body English) to initiate the lift, but with the longer bike you have more space to move around and it sounds as though everything happens a bit more slowly as well making it easier to control. But on the flip-side maybe it requires a different timing, which may take some people a bit of time to perfect.

I can’t see how a larger bike can be easier to throw around than it’s smaller sibling,. In my opinion the longer bike (more stable) is more of a help to less confident riders, especially when the terrain gets steep.

Because as others have rightly pointed out, they allow you to use more body english without upsetting the bike - once you have the bike in the manual it is easier to hold it.

BMX's whilst more capable of tricks than mountain bikes, are trickier to ride for similar reasons.

The Dirt boys ride bikes fast, a lot of them prefer longer bikes with 29 inch wheels, whilst the Murmuur was their fastest bike on test. So I'm not sure that the reach argument holds weight for underconfident riders either, they do help confidence but they also reward aggressive riders.

The initial increased difficulty of popping the front wheel can be compensated by raising the bars or running an even shorter stem than 35mm. A 30mm difference in reach is simply going to make less of a difference than a change in bar height - and you are giving up significant room to move within the bike on descents.

<div class="bbcode-quote">

When I took the Large longshot FlareMAX for a ride… I found getting the front up “easier” …

</div>

This could well be because the weight distribution on these long, slack bikes with short stems is more rearward when riding on the flat. They just allow you to ride more centrally when descending in the attack position.

I'd add that most of a manual accomplished by your legs, reach isn't going to affect that and surely for a given amount of rotation around a back wheel/axle, a long front is going to transalte to more height off the ground?

The important bit is the chainstay length, and those are longer on the Cotic than the Mega.

I think most peoples peoples first impressions of a bike are affected by their preconcieved notions of how a bike should ride, based on how it looks or the numbers.

Interesting discussion, and good to see some open mindedness among the MTB industry.

It's amazing how RAD!!!!! yet how conservative MTBers are on the whole....

It seems things may be settling on a new 'normal' for a while.  It's telling that the bikes Cesar Rojo is producing now at Unno have settled on a 455 reach and 64ish HA depending on model.

Almost the same as he was doing in 2008/2009..

Between him and Barel at Mondraker I suspect they would have done as Cy has and gone full Geometron and beyond, then brought things back to their best all round compromise.

A compromise is what it is at the end of the day.  As others have said, bare numbers don't explaing everything that is happening while propelling a bike across dirt at all sorts of angles.  Bigger/smaller angles, less/more weight all have plusses and minuses.

I wonder if now that the numbers settle for a while, will the next great frontier be linkage front ends?  I'd love to see a modern take on PRST1 and the USE Sub fork.  Modern forks are great, but with great failings really.  Anti brake dive would be a game changer.  Consider how much interest there is around rear sus kinematics and spring curves compared with a front fork which has it's performance ruined every time you brake.

But it won't look MOTO!!!!  Waaah.  Piss off.  Give me something that works.

Someone above mentioned rigid bikes in this context.  It's a fine line.  The front needs to be unweighted easily enough, while still allowing weight over the tyre for cornering grip.  It can work though.  My rigid bike has a 63 HA (custom fork)and 450 reach and 440 CS.  It works a treat.   IT feels really neutral and balanced.  I got the fork made with a huge offset to give the right mechanical trail and wheel flop numbers.  The chainstay a little shorter may be nice.  Again, it's a compromise.

I wonder if now that the numbers settle for a while, will the next great frontier be linkage front ends?  I’d love to see a modern take on PRST1 and the USE Sub fork.  Modern forks are great, but with great failings really.  Anti brake dive would be a game changer.  Consider how much interest there is around rear sus kinematics and spring curves compared with a front fork which has it’s performance ruined every time you brake.

That's been done to death, they failed in the past for a number of reasons supposedly - stiffness due to bearing play - they require a lot of maintenance, more so than the rear because play causes a lot more issues in terms of handling at the front. Secondly, the predictable axle path of the telescopic forks makes handling more predictable through cornering. Thirdly, the amount of LSC you have to run to resist G-outs is roughly equivalent to what you have to run to get some brake dive resistance, so you end up running a fair bit of LSC on these linkage bikes anyway. Fourthly, linkage designs have varying abilities to cope with brake dive, just as rear linkage designs have varying ability to cope with squat etc.

Everyone has always said they'd be a game changer, but they have time and time failed to gain traction in motosports and mountain biking.

https://www.pinkbike.com/video/462644/

Vorsprung did a pretty good takedown of them.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=84hF-qoR5I8C&pg=SA1-PA15&lpg=SA1-PA15&dq=girder+fork+stiffness&source=bl&ots=F-x-rEObLl&sig=-PorHQKe-Cb0DN4Nlam76HBSxFo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjS16KT9PDZAhUMe8AKHcmOARYQ6AEILjAA#v=onepage&q=girder%20fork%20stiffness&f=false

Good bit of history on linkage forks here, although the author seems to think the telescopic fork is all about marketing.

For me the LLS design means I can ride a small, medium or a Large due to the standover (I’m 5′ 8″) and choose which reach feels best for my riding – brilliant!

That makes no sense to me, just suggests you don't know what size bike you should ride.

Well, at that height he can conceivably ride an 18 inch frame and choose a bike based on the reach. The only issue with doing that is that if you run a lot of post out of the frame by choosing a small, you will lose a lot of the benefits of having a steep seat angle and will be hanging off the back whilst climbing.

That makes no sense to me, just suggests you don’t know what size bike you should ride.

Exactly my point -  it does make sense if you don't know what size bike you should ride as you can try them and find out, as it is possible to ride 3 sizes  reasonably efficiently - it's about feel not figures.

Interesting stuff. Realistically if you can't see it from the numbers, you just have to try one. That's what started this whole thing off for me. Looking at Chris's bike and going 'that can't possibly work', then trying it in a car park and it just felt like a bike. The breadth of layout which can be made to go down a trail is much wider than people think, mainly because human's are so bloody good at staying upright and sensing when they are about to not be upright! Doesn't mean making that process and bit easier and bit less likely to happen is a bad thing. Really, I can't recommend strongly enough getting involved in one of our demos, or getting a shot on a Mondraker or Geometrion. Just give them a (proper, not car park) go.

For the guy who has a large current FlareMAX with 50mm stem and tried the medium: you REALLY need to try the large. The medium demo bike has a similar reach to your large gen1 frame, but a 35mm stem, so is a fair bit shorter bars to BB. New large with 35mm stem is a little longer, but that should suit you I think.

For the guy who car park tested the small, I am 99% sure it won't feel as good on the trail as the medium. Car park jibs are one thing, trails at reasonable speed is another. Obviously it's a preference thing, and if you prefer that, then great, but my gut feeling is that 'playful' in the yard at Calver translates to 'nervous' once you're properly offroad.

Cheers!

I'm almost certain, just as the podcast was ending, i could hear CY whisper that "that lovely big fella from Northern Ireland who completely trusted in us and bought one of the first RocketMax's completely blind, and has been singing it's praises to anyone who would listen, would be getting a new Longshot RocketMax frame at at highly discounted rate."

Cy can you confirm i wasn't just hearing things?

“The only issue with doing that is that if you run a lot of post out of the frame by choosing a small, you will lose a lot of the benefits of having a steep seat angle and will be hanging off the back whilst climbing.”

The perceived seat angle will be exactly the same for the same saddle height, regardless of how much seatpost is sticking out of the frame.

Depends, Cotic quote effective STA. So depends if they use same  reference point (saddle height) for each frame size. I'm not sure what the industry standard is and manufacturers seem to vary in regards to whether they are quoting for the same saddle height on whether they are quoting for different saddle heights based on the size of the frame.

Sorry for not updating earlier - we didn’t get over to the demo weekend ‘cos of the snow.

I had a couple of hours on a new large FlareMAX today.  I think it’s only fair to mention that trail conditions in the Hope Valley were pretty ‘sub optimal’ - still a fair bit of snow on the ground. Other thing was the fork on the demo bike (2018 Pike) felt a bit off, and it seemed to be doing that sucking down at 10-15% sag thing that Pikes sometimes do - so it was lacking the supple grippy feel of the XFusion on my own bike. (Guess the Pike just needed a lowers service).

Given the above, I don’t think I can give anything more than a first impression on fit and handling.  I’d like to try it again on drier trails, and maybe some flowy trail centre type stuff (unfortunately, the local man made ‘flow trails’ are closed at the moment).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the bike felt a fair bit longer than my current large FlareMAX, although not uncomfortably so.  Once off road, I noticed on the climbs that I was spending more time on the nose of the saddle than I am on my bike, and the saddle was already almost fully forward on its rails.  The steering was a bit more wandering than my current bike.  Stem was pretty low, so it might have been partly down to the forks reluctance to move past its sticky point - the front of the frame and bars felt a very similar height and width as my own bike, but it really felt like the forks were propping the front up.

I was struggling with the conditions on the tech descents, and wasn’t feeling the love for the fork, but once I dodged off piste onto some steep snow free bits, the updated geometry started making sense - very confidence inspiring and the front end was gripping really well on some horrible sniper roots on pretty steep off Camber stuff.  On the return leg I was able to let the bike run on a couple of stretches of a rough descent, and again, the new geometry started to shine.  I’m looking forward to having another go on one when the trails have dried out a bit.

p.s. I’d intended to repeat the loop straight after on my own bike, but ended up in front of the wood burner in the local cafe stuffing my face......mmmm, cake😊

Thanks @bowglie. I guess it's not too surprising that a longer slacker bike will wander a bit more on the climbs. Pity about the fork though. Hope the cake was good 🙂

Hey RP, judging by the other recent Cotic, you can't go saying something positive about the cake! Even if cake is good it is only what the baker should have done surely 😉

🙂 I must admit I was somewhat surprised by some of the comments on the other tread. I've seen similar comments for a range of brands over the years though. From bigger players (like Santa Cruz) down to a guy in a shed. But I still don't understand it. If people generally like the products produced by a company and have positive experiences to report I'd take that as a sign than the company is doing something right. But it seems to annoy some people to the point that they feel compelled to insult the people who like a certain brand.

I'm more cynical than most, but it's a sad world where you can't say anything positive about a company without being insulted in return. Maybe it's the sheer number of happy customers that upsets people. But surely that's still a sign than the company is doing something right. Whether it is good products, good support or just clever marketing, it's still worth celebrating. Oh well, such is life I guess. Back to the bikes

Getting back to the bikes; it's not surprising that a longer slacker bike wanders a bit more on the climbs, but this is probably the most off putting thing I could have read about the new geometry to be honest. I know you can't have something for nothing. If it's more confidence inspiring on descents there has to be a price to pay. I was ready to pay that price in having to move my body more to make it change direction (up/down or left/right). More confidence probably just mean more stable, so it's going to take more effort to move. Fair enough, but I'm not sure I'm willing to pay the price in worse climbing.

Of course, I'm a self confessed demo sceptic, so I won't give too much weight to one demo ride. Maybe it was the fork. Maybe the bar height was not optimal. But it's certainly making me pause for thought.

Hey Cy,

Any idea why the frame deliveries have been pushed back to the 3rd week of April?

it’s not surprising that a longer slacker bike wanders a bit more on the climbs, but this is probably the most off putting thing I could have read about the new geometry to be honest. I know you can’t have something for nothing. If it’s more confidence inspiring on descents there has to be a price to pay. I was ready to pay that price in having to move my body more to make it change direction (up/down or left/right). More confidence probably just mean more stable, so it’s going to take more effort to move. Fair enough, but I’m not sure I’m willing to pay the price in worse climbing.

That's simply not the case.  A modern geo bike with a 64 head and 75 seat angle will climb great, no question about it.

The slack bikes don't climb myth is a throwback from the olden days when you made a bike slack by sticking long forks on.

Put some lovely long Bombers on your bike to slack it out from 70 to 67 degrees.  Now the 72 SA is 69.  You are sitting way out over the back wheel and the BB is sky high = wandery front end.

Get a long n slack bike and expect much better climbing, not worse.  The steep SA puts your weight over the pedals too, so you don't need to haul on the bars and upset the steering.  Sit in the middle of the bike, in the middle of the saddle (not on the nose) and spin your way up the dirtiest climbs you can find.  Long chainstays will make it even more planted.

I disagree, in fact I think I made this point up-thread somewhere.  Slack angles = high flop = steering can wander at low speeds (such as when one is grunting up a really steep climb).  One gets used to it but it is definitely a thing one can perceive.

ETA the problem isn't the length, and I agree that steep seat angles help when the hill is steep, though they can make it more difficult when the hill isn't steep but grip is at a premium so you want all the weight over the back if combined with longish chainstays such as on a 29er.

So for climbing, yes long, yes steep seat angle, but no slack head angle is what I am saying.

If you can remember to steer the bike when climbing then slack head angles aren’t a problem at all. And steep seat angles are very good (bear in mind that a full-sus bike’s seat angle will get slacker uphill as the rear suspension sags more than on the flat).

The point of the short stem combined with increased offset is to move the tyre contact point relative to the axle when using slacker head angles, helping to eleviate what you call steering flop.

Funny that steering flop used to be avoided at all cost by frame designers, now head angles have become so slack that it's now a good thing as it's the only way to initiate a turn on these long barges 😂😂

According to the equation listed above, increasing the trail and/or decreasing the head angle will increase the wheel flop factor on a bicycle or motorcycle, which will increase the torque required to bring the handlebars back to the straight ahead position and increase the vehicle's tendency to veer suddenly off the line of a curve.

Wiki, so with slack head angles - short stems are part of equation in terms of countering steering flop. The tendency for the front end to wander off line, in an outwards direction could easily be controlled through a steering damper - like every single race motorcycle worth it's salt - including puny little 125 crossers....have.

Like everything in the mountainbike world, we are constantly playing catch up with the big boys. Slack 62 degree head angles? Wide bars? Zero length stems direct mount stems? Speed sensitive suspension? Disk brakes? How many donkey years did the MX boys have these whilst we were pissing around with elastomer sprung seatposts, long stems on our single crown forks, 72 degree head angles, position sensitive damping and bar ends on our 600mm wide bars?

Too long.

You never know, some genius might give us actual gas pressurised dampers in forks and encourage a wider use of bleeder valves next....hopefully....in 5 years....maybe.

If you can remember to steer the bike when climbing then slack head angles aren’t a problem at all. And steep seat angles are very good (bear in mind that a full-sus bike’s seat angle will get slacker uphill as the rear suspension sags more than on the flat).

That is the point @chief - if you are pedalling your lungs out just to keep the bike rolling at a walking pace up a technical climb with a bit of exposure on one side, you can do without distractions like having to steer the bike all the time.

@cyclelife - the increased offset, if you have one, doesn't make up for the slacker head angle.  It doesn't even get the trail back to where it was.  Each degree slacker gets you ~7mm more trail, so to compensate for that going from 69 to 66 degrees you would have to go from something like 40mm trail to 65mm trail, and that range is not available in forks atm.  And flop rises with trail and with slackness (well, untill your head angle gets to 45 degrees).  (Figures for a 29" wheel.)  So you can't really avoid more flop with slacker head angles.

Realistically, it only effects the ride quality at less than walking pace doesn't it. Because 63 degree head angled downhill bikes aren't exactly unridable are they?

Again though, the best way to counter the flop is steering dampers and zero stems - but people didn't like the aesthetics of the mondraker stem and no one yet has got the balls to say "SINGLE CROWNS SUCK GIGANTIC DONKEY BALLS FOR ANY GRAVITY SITUATION - DIRECT MOUNT STEMS RULE"

Because some XC baboon would come along and say "what about the turning circle"?

Same with air suspension, the MTB world continually pushes them because the weight weenies are so concerned about weight as opposed to performance and each year we get some new iteration of an airspring because actually - sorry guyzzz.... turns out that last years model had nowhere near the same bump compliance or mid stroke support of an actual coil.....and this years won't either.....

to compensate for that going from 69 to 66 degrees you would have to go from something like 40mm trail to 65mm trail, and that range is not available in forks atm.

It is on my bike 🙂  100mm offset  63 HA for lovely stable neutral steering.

But yeah, it's rigid and custom so doesn't really apply to this conversation.

Wheel flop is a thing with slacker sus bikes, but it's easier to live with for the benefits than a sharp steering steep bike with it's drawbacks.

Good pionts @ryanwomble.  I used to love the wombles.  If you could get the bars behind the steering tube, you could separate the issues of reach and head angle, so you could have long, low and steep if you wanted.  It would be interesting to separate the length from teh slackness to see which did what.  I think Tony Foale tried that with motorbikes.