[Closed] New Soul geometry???

Short answer seems to be 'to accommodate long dropper posts'

However if you look at the charts*, they're not that much shorter compared to the old model 10-20mm tops, and that's the space now taken up by the collar of a dropper, and you kind of expect taller riders to use a bigger/longer drop dropper so hence the difference scaling as the size goes up.

*
Soul 26 (last 26 model)
small ST = 400mm
medium ST = 440mm
large ST = 480mm

New Soul
small ST = 390mm (-10mm)
medium ST = 425mm (-15mm)
large ST = 460mm (-20mm)

As always though, sucks if you're on the borderline of a size or have particularly long or short legs for your height. I would fit a medium happily (5'7 1/2), but have to go for a small** and max of 120mm dropper due to my short legs, the seattube on a medium is too long for me!

** Flare and old Soul, I might actually [b]just [/b]fit a medium on the new Soul...

Ah, these new fangled up and down seat posts. You mean one of these right?

[img] [/img]

So it's more that it might necessitate the use of a dropper post, than accommodate it, assuming you want the right reach...

necessitate

Well as above, it's 10-20mm so it's only an issue if you were close to running out of seatpost before anyway, if you weren't at the extreme end of the range before you're still fine now.

I actually saw a bike with a Hite-Rite the other day, made me smile, it's been a while since I saw one in the wild.

Ok, so fag packet calculations show me that I could ride the Medium Soul (16.7" ST) with a 390mm Reverb post, with enough post in the frame, which is OK. But the 340mm Reverb would be out.

I think I'm just anal about having to use over-long/short components to get bikes to fit, as an indicator of less than ideal fit. Possibly coming from road bikes... But if bikes are being designed like this intentionally, I suppose I won't argue.

So it's probably workable for most people - I'm sure Cotic have thought about it. But it's still short.

Edit: I also think it's a bit ugly - if I had more £££ than sense I'd have a non-suspension corrected / short travel HT frame built with a taller seat tube, less sloping TT, but the reach of a medium-ish size. Maybe that'd be a different bike completely, but I'd be prepared to bet it'd do most of the same stuff most Souls will do.

It's probably because of stumpy-legged runts like me moaning at them to make bikes with shorter seat tubes so I can get a long enough reach.

Sorry.

I suppose I won't argue.

where's the fun in that! get stroppy, have a shout, you'll feel better 🙂

FWIW, it's not a Cotic specific thing, seat tubes have been getting (relatively speaking) shorter and/ord top tubes lower for a while along with the reach increase, the TT dropping is also why you're seeing so many braced seat tube arrangements, does tend to accentuate the 'long 'n low' look too and make bikes look smaller vertically than they are.

As you've done though, do the maths, make sure it'll all work and then crack on...

stumpy-legged runts

I prefer to describe myself as 'sturdy and with a low centre of gravity' 😉

I suppose I just think all MTBs should look like this:

[img] ?fit=crop&h=400&w=700&dpr=1&q=50&sharp=10&fm=pjpg&auto=format[/img]

I prefer to describe myself as 'sturdy and with a low centre of gravity'

Haha, sounds better than "short, low and slack" I guess.

Personally I much prefer the look of this...
[img] [/img]

To this...
[img] [/img]

Or even... this:

[img] [/img]

Re the Soul pics, prefer the older frame for looks - the fork on the newer one's handsomer, but what really makes me puke is the dinner plate on the back of the new one. But that's a different conversation...

Ok, so fag packet calculations show me that I could ride the Medium Soul (16.7" ST) with a 390mm Reverb post, with enough post in the frame, which is OK. But the 340mm Reverb would be out.

My reverb is 440mm… and there is a 480mm one.

So, I think the answer to your conundrum, is to use a longer seatpost.

Could be worse
[img] [/img]
EDIT-No,no it could'nt.

why are the seat tubes so short for a given size?!

Because there’s no reason to have them longer. If you use a dropper post you can have more drop for a given leg length. If you use a conventional post you get a more comfortable seated ride from the greater post compliance. Regardless you have more standover clearance and more knee clearance when cornering.

Anyone who says they’re too tall for the new shorter seat tubes is either closer to 7’ than 6’ tall or hasn’t realised how high you can get your saddle with something like a 170mm Reverb (480mm post length).

I’m assuming you think a seatpost should only be 350mm long. If you use a modern length one then you could ride a 13” frame.

[s]

If you use a conventional post you get a more comfortable seated ride from the greater post compliance

[/s] :DI get an ugly bike and greater stress on the seat tube/top tube junction. 😀 (Even with 10cm+ in the frame). Unlikely to be a problem at my weight and riding tendencies, but could be less than ideal for others.

Plus, if I'm riding a steel frame with 2.4 inch tyres, I'm OK for seated comfort I reckon. I see the point about being able to use a dropper post with greater drop, but I suppose I wouldn't have seen the need for this in an all-round bike in the past, but if it's the way things are going...

I’m assuming you think a seatpost should only be 350mm long

Er, not exactly - I have a 410mm one (could *just* get away with a 350 on the min line) but in the past where seat tube lengths still bore a more direct relationship to head tube length / stack height, this would quite probably indicate a poor fit. E.g. I have an old orange clockwork frame in 17 inch which is probably a bit small due to the low stack height, but would take a 17 inch in most modern trail bikes with no worries over stack height (too high if anything). I guess now with longer travel forks and 650b/29er wheels front ends are sufficiently high that this is somewhat irrelevant. Too short ST with a high front end can still be fugly though.

The bike is designed for LONG seat posts - the strength is a non-issue. In case you haven’t noticed it’s a much fatter seat tube than than on an original Soul.

Regarding the aesthetic, that’s just personal preference - I think MTBs look much better with shorter seat tubes and dropped/sloping top tubes. And I really appreciate the top tube being lower and more out of the way when riding, dismounting or crashing...

Incidentally, I still have that book with the Fat Chance pic!

Presume you haven't seen this thread by the way OP?

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/new-soul-from-cotic

I’ve never understood how those Hite-Rite posts work- do you need to leave your seat clamp loose so the whole post slides up and down or doesn’t it work that way?

The Soul was always designed fairly compact and we have always recommended the use of 400mm+ long seatposts, as I always wanted a frame that didn't look like a gate despite being 6ft 3in, and that I could throw around without getting caught up in it. As plenty of people have mentioned, with the default dropper post now being 440mm long, shortening the seat tube a touch made sense.