[Closed] New Bike Itch - Modern Bike Geometry

Depends on how short your current bike is for you and how long you’d like it to be!

Lengthening reach, especially to the extremes of Poles and Geometrons doesn’t come without some compromises.

Don't underestimate what a shock service can do. However, if you're set on a new bike, I wouldn't expect anything ncessarily ground-breaking from the modern geo trail bikes. I have a Tallboy 2 as my trail bike, but have recently ridden the 5010, highball and Blur and whilst different, are no 'better'

Cheers for the swift replies.

Comparing a new bike against mine, I’d say my reach is about 50mm too short. There may have been a couple of times my bars felt a bit close, but not often.

I appreciate a shock will do bot all for the geometry, however it is going to be needed shortly,and I don’t see the point spending money on a frame I’m about to replace.

Not getting the impression it’s groundbreaking is pretty reassuring...pretty much everything I’ve found online is marketing hype.

It depends on your starting point really. Firstly reach is just about standing position not seated
position. I think if you draw a vertical line through the bottom bracket reach is the measurement from there to the head tube (correct me if that’s not quite right). A lot of modern bikes then have a steep seat tube angle which can make it not feel that long a bike when your seated.

I went from quite a short and steep 130/130mm travel 4 bar trail
Bike to a 160/145 enduro bike that’s among the longest of the current crop. But it also has a 4 degree slacker head angle too than the old bike.

It made a huge difference. On strava I’m still (a couple of years later) taking big chunks out of pbs downhill and the line choice you can get away with is outrageous. Makes you grin from ear to ear frequently on fast flat out downhill sections.

It also does well on steep technical downhills as the front wheel doesn’t lift under hard efforts.

Downsides are I felt I had to relearn how to ride to get cornering where it should be (weighting the front wheel is very important to get good turn in at speed) and it is a lot of bike. On flat twisty trails it’s also a bit harder work than the old bike.

Overall I’m glad I changed - but I don’t know what the Carbine is like.

50mm too short as in doesn’t fit or just 50mm shorter than the modern trend?

If it’s the former then a new bike that actually fits will probably feel awesome. If it’s the latter, you’re getting rid of a bike you say you definitely like for one you might not just because it’s new.

Dont get me wrong, I’m a serial bike swapper myself but it’s very rare that a new one is truly amazing compared to the one it replaces. New bikes are cool though so I say go for it.

Stop messing about and get new bike bought 🙂

Keep the Intense!

I had a Trek Remedy that was as you say good at everything. Eventually the new bike itch got the best of me, mainly because of geometry curiosity. So I went from my Remedy with ‘dated’ 480mm reach to a 520mm Bird (both XL).

Slowly I came to terms with the fact that the long bike was simply not as fun to ride in most situations, and although it was rapid in a straight line and super stable, I just couldnt ride tight corners and jumps the way I wanted. Luckily I kept the Remedy and it’s now my main bike again, and I’m enjoying riding it way more!

If you’re happy with your bike then save your money for riding trips 🙂

I think a lot comes down to what kind of trails you're riding. If I was still riding trail centres and tamer trails I'd be happy on the Anthem I had 2-3 years ago. If you're riding steep tech or racing enduro for example then you're more likely to find benefit in a more modern geometry LLS bike. It's not to say you can't do those things on an 'older' geometry bike, it's just that I find the differences in bike geometry become more pronounce the more you push things.

“If you’re riding steep tech or racing enduro for example then you’re more likely to find benefit in a more modern geometry LLS bike”

It depends on how twisty and slow the steep tech is. If it’s steep like a WC DH track and also fast then longer (to a point) works better - see Aaron Gwin riding an XL Intense for racing even though he prefers how the L feels. But slower tighter tech eventually becomes more difficult as the wheelbase gets too long.

Low always helps when it’s steep or fast - but BB heights haven’t changed much for a few years, the average BB height might have dropped but that’s because the taller bikes have got lower, the low bikes have stayed the same.

Nu skool geo bikes don't all have to be tanks & enduro weapons! , longer reach and slacker ha does mean you have to weight the front end more in corners, but if you get one with shorter chainstays it keeps them fun & manoeuvrable.

There's lots of different iterations out there, try a few.

If I go back to a shorter steeper bike now it feels cramped & unstable, especially on the downs.

It depends on how twisty and slow the steep tech is.

Maybe if it's really tight long becomes a disadvantage, but I'd still want low and slack.

My general point was geometry becomes more noticeable and critical the more you push the steep and/or fast thing. At least that's what I find with my mediocre skills.

I've been seeking out the steepest tech stuff south Wales off piste has to offer and haven't found length of my medium Aeris an issue, maybe it's not tight enough tech, it's certainly steep enough! I have now sized up to an ML 145 as I wanted longer and slacker. Early days so far but time will tell if I've gone too far, but it will be interesting finding out. Really only Pole and Geometron that are more out there, and the size Geometron that fits me has the same reach anyway.

Industry increases reach on all bike sizes
Punter suddenly feels his bike is too short

seems legit

I was just messing around comparing the geometry of my Anthem with that of the 5 i used to have. Similar head angle/seat angle, Anthem is slightly longer and lower, the five had 20mm more suspension travel. Yet the 5 was banded as an all Mountain bike and the Anthem a XC bike. LOL so much bullshit!

I went from a 2012 stump jumper 29er to a more modern full sus after getting a nukeproof scout 290 which is also fairly long and slack, and very low. I find that longer bikes are more stable and easier to ride, which lets me push harder given my skills than I can on a shorter bike both at speed and on steeper, slower stuff. I don't find the length a problem on the tighter slow trails that I ride, and I find it jumps well and safely for me as it is so stable. It makes me confident, which sets up a virtuous cycle of riding for me.

I traded my LLS hardtail for one that is less slack and low, and although it is less confidence inspiring it is a lot livelier and engaging. It's harder to ride fast but I'm hoping it will help me improve various aspects of my riding, and it is a lot of fun but in a different way to my old LLS HT.

If I was really good, and not racing, I'm not sure I'd go super long. Everything is a compromise.

I don’t find the length a problem on the tighter slow trails that I ride

So what was your excuse for knicker last Wednesday? 😆

Ouch - call Ian out Mark! It was me very much backmarking down that trail though.

I’m going to blame being on a steeper / shorter hardtail whilst you boys were on your gnarpoons 😝 (nothing at all to do with my slightly dodgy skills or lack of)

Mark was behind me Joe, that's all you need to know!

New skool LLS is more of a sea-change in riding style than you first realise.

IME, you can't just look at reach as the defining metric, because without seat tube angle considered in the mix, you don't know if you'll be over stretched when seated which, let's face it, is the lion's share of time when riding.

There's also an increasing amount of commitment to the front required to maintain grip the longer reach becomes. IME that takes a longer period of time and requires surprisingly more commitment than people, even experienced riders expect.

When you get it right, theres a real lightbulb moment and all of a sudden you realise why the front needs to be so slack, so that you're still sufficienly behind the front axle when committed.

Once you've mastered the front commitment it's easy to see that most tight stuff is only 'difficult and more cumbersome' if you're riding new school geometry with an old school approach.

Depends on the size of bike your ride IMO. Large and XL sizes have got much longer, which is great for tall people.

"New skool LLS is more of a sea-change in riding style than you first realise."

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it's a continuum, not a step change. I wouldn't want to go back to short, tall and steep bikes like my old Cotic Soul with 140mm forks, but I don't want to go all the way to super long as weighting the front wheel on less steep trails and flat corners becomes a problem, especially with quick slalom turns where having your weight fowards limits how quickly you can change direction.

I'm just under 5'11 with long limbs and have found that about 455mm reach and plenty of stack height works well for me. Make the stack too low and I find that much reach too long. 50mm stem and 770mm bars. I don't like the BB crazy low, about 345mm unsagged is a good compromise. I like the head angle pretty slack - 65 deg on a short offset 29er is nice (that gives more trail than on a 27.5 DH bike). I seem to like longer chainstays on full-sus bikes and shorter on hardtails (hardtails have less grip at the back so they're still balanced in corners like this).

This kind of geometry means I can stay relatively central and don't have to hugely weight the bars in the turns but it's still very stable. I just don't ride as well when I have to get way forwards, I steer better from my hips when I'm more centred.

I think part of the current liking for more extreme geometry is driven by big riders finally getting bikes that fit - there needs to be a wider range of sizing, bigger steps in reach between an XS and XL. If you look at how much higher the centre of gravity is of a 6'5" man vs a 5'0" woman it's no wonder that tall men like much longer bikes.

A Santa Cruz V10 from a few years back is only 3" longer reach in an XL than a Small. Yet the rider on the XL might be 18" taller! Madness...

New bikes are fun.