[Closed] So is the a date at which modern geometry was broadly introduced?

i would say its been over the last 2-3 years (maybe a touch longer). Some small changes from existing manufacturers to pretty 'wild' geo from new companies, such as Privateer with the 161.

Some manufacturers are still pretty conservative with their movements towards the LLS mantra.

So it would be hard to pin point an exact model year you would need to look at the get a taste of LLS. Take a look at each bikes geo and go from there.

Dunno exactly but I got a 2013 Sunn Tzar 26er (the aluminium one) in the sale at Chain Reaction that was pretty 'modern' (66° HA, steep-ish seat, long-ish reach, low-ish BB) for its time I suppose.

Mid 2010's perhaps? Although Cotic HTs still had slack seat angles up until fairly recently.

Define modern. If you take it as the new LLS trend then Mojo/ Geometron released their first bike in 2014/ 2015.

Since you mentioned Cotic. They announced their first Longshot in 2016 and took several years to transfer their full range to Longshot.

It depends on the brand and the bike.

Cotic were quite late to the party, the Longshot Solaris didn't come till 2018?

I had a Specialized Pitch with a sub 66deg head angle and 475mm reach back in 2010 though and specialized had been using that geometry on the Enduro since about 2006.

XC bikes still haven't caught up. Although the new Cannondale XC race hardtail now has a 66deg head angle but combines it with a relatively normal XC reach and stem so I'd love to find out how that handles as I find that long reach, short stem, slack head angle doesn't work for me with SPD's as the weight distribution feels all wrong.

As for missing out, it depends what you want to do with it. I still think the slacker end of XC (~68 ish head angle) on an XC hardtail is the fastest way round a loop most of the time. It's just less composed on the descents.

And if buying a hardtail secondhand, e.g. Cotic Solaris for sake of argument, what year would be similar to today’s ‘modern’ standards.

Sod s/h, just take a look at an On One Scandal - £1000 today.

I think the different adoption rates for the different companies makes it a bit hard to be specific. My Turner Flux for example was a new model in 2009 but was quite conservative geometry even then. The Bird Aether 9 I have now fulfils pretty much the same role but is very different geometry in most ways.

Both those manufacturers are low/medium-low volume producers however. I think you need to be looking at a mass manufacturer and the changes to their middle of the road, mid travel 'trail' bike that has been a named model in their range forever to get a best idea of when a concept became mainstream. Something like the Specialized Stumpjumper FSR maybe.

I reckon when Mondraker introduced their Forward Geometry ideas (around 2013?). The Foxy of that era was, for me, the breakthrough bike.

Sod s/h, just take a look at an On One Scandal – £1000 today.

They've messed with the spec since I got mine when they launched, but it's still a cracking bike.

People will (perhaps rightly) pick holes in the spec, saying the 35 isn't as good as a Pike, or the HG freehub makes it heavy, and the tyres should really just be placeholders on the spec sheet, but for <£1k you just stop caring as it's so much fun .

I have a 2014 Solaris frame in the classified - it's definitely not New Skool. Shortish top tide / 70 degree head angle ( I ran it with a -2 headset).

My FlareMax is New Skool LLS - but that is 2018.
My Production Privee Oka is 66 degree HA - but shorter than the FLareMax - longer than the Solaris

It thought it was Mondraker that stated with the long thing way before anyone else - though Gary Fisher seems to claim it was him.

https://www.mtbr.com/threads/the-paths-custom-el-ciclon.466147/

though Gary Fisher seems to claim it was him.

He'll claim anything if given the chance though, eh?

i would say its been over the last 2-3 years (maybe a touch longer)

Basically this.

Changes to head and seat angles are still ongoing but reach figures (the biggest innovation IMO) seemed to largely settle a couple of years ago.

I had a Specialized Pitch with a sub 66deg head angle and 475mm reach back in 2010 though and specialized had been using that geometry on the Enduro since about 2006.

It wasn't as modern as you think it was - 67 HA and 480mm reach for the large. It was a good bike but Spesh have rarely been leaders in geometry. The 2006 Enduro was even shorter and more upright than the Pitch.

Sod s/h, just take a look at an On One Scandal – £1000 today.

I absolutely love my Scandal, easily the best hardtail i've owned. Geometry is modern without it being stupid and it just rides brilliantly.

though Gary Fisher seems to claim it was him.

Well of course he does. Right after he discovered the wheel and how to make fire.

I absolutely love my Scandal, easily the best hardtail i’ve owned. Geometry is modern without it being stupid and it just rides brilliantly.

This is, I think, where I'm going to end up for the C2W purchase I'm currently mulling. It's a shame P-X don't so any decent off-road lights, cos I could bundle them in on the C2W order

edd

Define modern. If you take it as the new LLS trend then Mojo/ Geometron released their first bike in 2014/ 2015.

Which was an extension of Mondraker's ideas with "forward geometry". Mondraker didn't really do the seat angle thing, they mainly just made the top tube long and the stem short.

thisisnotaspoon

I had a Specialized Pitch with a sub 66deg head angle and 475mm reach back in 2010

67 head angle in the low setting, and I very much doubt it had a 475 reach - it had a 73 seat angle with a 620 (horizontal) top tube. My old 26" Nicolai from 2012 had 440 reach, with a 74 seat angle and the same 620 ETT.

https://www.specialized.com/ee/en/pitch-pro/p/22892/specs

it was whenever mondraker introduced their forward geometry concept - they made a bit of a misstep with the 0mm length stems that they used at the same time, but the whole concept of long reach, low BB, short stem, started with them - in a mainstream way at least

chakaping

seat angles are still ongoing but reach figures (the biggest innovation IMO) seemed to largely settle a couple of years ago.

Reach and seat angle are so closely interrelated that they're almost the same thing. Increae SA and the reach gets longer, unless you shorten the TT. Or do what Mondraker did above - add 40mm to the top tube ,and remove it from the stem

Some of this “modern” geometry is just returning mountain biking to its roots, after the road bike obsessions of short rear ends and snappy steering messed up headangles and chainstay lengths.

My 1998 Orange C16r felt long and slack compared to previous 1993 Al Carter Sacremento.... 😉

Reach and seat angle are so closely interrelated that they’re almost the same thing. Increae SA and the reach gets longer, unless you shorten the TT.

I don't think I'm missing anything, but reach is entirely unaffected by seat tube angle AFAIK.

Are you thinking of TT or ETT?

Depends by brand, OP.

Mondraker, already mentioned.

Kona 'process' geometry from 2015 ish, but their whole thing was to go longer and lower, but not too slack.

Geometron etc at the more niche end.

Other brands largely taking note of the above and some models moving more LLS since then, with a stampede of previously more conservative brands in the last 2-3 years.

If you were buying a bike from 2016/17 for example, you could get modern /LLS geometry from one major brand, or a bike designed for t-rex arms from another (looking at you, "Giant" 😉)

Gary fisher if we are talking big wheels and xc geo - he introduced shorter stems on xc/trail bikes with 29r wheels in the early 2000's iirc, just didn't kick off all that quick and become mainstream for several years...

As for enduro geo, has to be Mondraker.....

I'm sure that there were smaller manufacturers progressing geo at the same time, but those two risked putting it to mass production. I'm sure that there was a steel 'DH' hardtail reviewed in dirt in the late 90's that had long and slacker geo....

But, it's a gradual progression, I don't think that there really was a 💡moment.

I reckon when Mondraker introduced their Forward Geometry ideas (around 2013?).

Then it was taken forwards by Mr Porter with the Geometron.
It's taken a fair amount of time for others to catch up to it but they're getting there now.
Often makes me wander if it's taken this long because some brands have tried to string things out with half a degree here and there so they still have somewhere to go with their "new" models every year.

Was going to say the Mojo/Geometron whenever that was. People thought Chris Porter was mental. Now look...

chakaping

I don’t think I’m missing anything, but reach is entirely unaffected by seat tube angle AFAIK.

Are you thinking of TT or ETT?

Two bikes can have the same tt length - say 600mm

If one has a 90 degree seat angle, then the reach is more or less 600mm, becasue when you're stood on the pedals, you are centred above the BB, the tt and reach measurements both start from that line from BB to centre of the seatpost

Another has a 60 seat anfle, so the start of the TT is way behind you, but is still 600 - the reach is from a vertical line up from the BB, so it's maybe only 300

Reach and seat angle are so closely interrelated that they’re almost the same thing.

Reach and seat angle are completely, and I mean completely, not connected. You need to go and refamiliarise yourself with a geometry diagram. Effective top tube and seat angle have a relationship, but not reach and seat angle.

Two bikes can have the same tt length – say 600mm

edit - I see what you are trying to say. But you are starting with the answer and then going backwards. ETT is a consequence of both the reach and the seat angle of the frame but it is not the driver. The LLS development was about increasing the reach, not messing about with the seat angle and as a consequence increasing the reach to make the ETT similar to previous designs.

Gary fisher if we are talking big wheels and xc geo – he introduced shorter stems on xc/trail bikes with 29r wheels in the early 2000’s iirc, just didn’t kick off all that quick and become mainstream for several years…

The Fisher Genesis or G2 geometry or whatever it was called made a longer top tube and shorter stem, but also a steep head angle I think. I have a Superfly from er 2013 or something like that, and it has a 70.5 HA.

I think things changed when Enduro bikes became a thing and they realised you could still ride a 65 degree HA bike uphill fairly well if you gave it a 76 degree seat angle. Then that crossed over to trail bikes.

It’s taken a fair amount of time for others to catch up to it but they’re getting there now.
Often makes me wander if it’s taken this long because some brands have tried to string things out with half a degree here and there so they still have somewhere to go with their “new” models every year.

I think it's because if you make something too different people will think it's really weird and not buy it.

Banshee have got to be in the running with their Spitfire frame when it first came out with 66HA and longer back end in 2010

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/banshee-Spitfire-2010.html

Sui
Spitfire V1,V2 and V3 owner and 26 is still better just saying.

I think things changed when Enduro bikes became a thing and they realised you could still ride a 65 degree HA bike uphill fairly well if you gave it a 76 degree seat angle. Then that crossed over to trail bikes.

Yes.

Example from a bike I had: the 2012 Cotic Rocket had a 66 degree head angle and 73 degree seat angle. The reach on the large is only 436mm but that was when the stems were 50-80mm, so actually not *that* far off the 490mm reach on a current FlareMax with a 30mm stem.

The Specialized Pitch from around the same era (slightly earlier I think) was equally slack/long. I put my large 29 FlareMax against a 26er 2010 Pitch and they had almost identical wheelbases...

I was sceptical but the geometry chart for the last model of the full-sus Pitch does indeed say the size large had a 475mm reach.

Meanwhile, the large Enduro 29 I got six or seven years later was 445mm reach IIRC.

Probably fair to credit Mondraker and Cesare Rojo's forward geometry designs in 2012-13 for starting that thought process, brands have all made their move on the basic idea at some point since and then gone back to finer tunes year on year. There's not been many longer-travel FS bikes that haven't had LLS geo since what, 2017-2018?

https://www.singletracks.com/mtb-gear/cesar-rojo-the-story-behind-mondrakers-forward-geometry/

The Fisher Genesis 2 idea was along the same lines.

The Fisher Genesis or G2 geometry or whatever it was called made a longer top tube and shorter stem, but also a steep head angle I think.

They were relatively relaxed for a HT at the time, used a longer fork offset to keep trail similar to what was around then and add FC length alongside the longer TT and shorter stem. The thing about LLS / Fwd Geo was how people stopped seeing 10mm as a change and 40-50mm longer in places on the same size of bike became normal, it was a much bigger change.

67 head angle in the low setting, and I very much doubt it had a 475 reach – it had a 73 seat angle with a 620 (horizontal) top tube. My old 26″ Nicolai from 2012 had 440 reach, with a 74 seat angle and the same 620 ETT.

480mm and 67 on the Large according to your link. Knock a degree off because I had a 160mm fork in it which it really needed, and shorten the reach my a few mm as a result.

Still compared favourably against modern bikes until things went a bit silly with people of normal proportions riding 500mm+ bikes looking like Obree's superman position and just looking out of control.

My old 26″ Nicolai from 2012 had 440 reach, with a 74 seat angle and the same 620 ETT.

The Pitch/Enduro-SL had a heavily kinked seatube so things like ETT and seat angle aren't really comparable. I remember having to slam the saddle to one end of the rails which meant the dropper bushings bound unless you angled your bodyweight over it in a very specific way.

I can remember the exact date I first took notice...

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/nicolai-mojo-geometron-first-ride-2015.html

I think Bird were early adopters of the LLS geometry. Only recently main brands have crept up to something similar.

So pretty impossible to pin a date. That geo geeks site is handy though to help figure out what's going on.

It depends which world you are in. If you were to losley align yourself with one of the 3 main and common race disciplines, which would it be? DH, Enduro or XC. because my answer is going to vary by 10 years.

abingham

I reckon when Mondraker introduced their Forward Geometry ideas (around 2013?). The Foxy of that era was, for me, the breakthrough bike.

Forgot about Mondraker…

honourablegeorge

edd

Define modern. If you take it as the new LLS trend then Mojo/ Geometron released their first bike in 2014/ 2015.

Which was an extension of Mondraker’s ideas with “forward geometry”. Mondraker didn’t really do the seat angle thing, they mainly just made the top tube long and the stem short.

And agree with this.

I think it's when the influence of this:

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/fabien-barel-bike-check-2009.html

and this:

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/mondrakers-new-forward-geometry-with-fabien-barel-2012.html

(plus some other stuff for sure), helped to inspire this:

https://geometronbikes.co.uk/2019/01/20/deviant-geometry-goes-mainstream/

convert

edit – I see what you are trying to say. But you are starting with the answer and then going backwards

Yeah, exactly that, I'm only saying it the context of two bikes with similar ETTs, the slacker seat angle will give shorter reach

IMO niche and small scale purveyors have been pushing LLS since 2012/13. Gary fisher G2 is a similar concept but its not recognisably Modern LLS.

LLS to the main stream (spesh/trek/giant) has only truly been a couple of years. They're been very incremental in their adoption, so I guess this hinges on when something becomes LLS and what you consider 'mainstream'.

Even in 2017 when I was shopping for a bleeding edge LLS full suss, my options outside of the usual candidates were limited. Only this year have I got an FS whose combination of reach, seat tube height, BB drop and Head angle are where I want them.

So Mondraker did the head angle on that DH bike and the reach on the Foxy but the DH bike wasn't that long and the Foxy wasn't that slack. Loads of bikes have been low over the years, I don't think BB heights now are much different to the original Klunkers.

The prototype Geometron combined all three but the effective seat angle looks to be only 74 deg. However I bet Geometron were the first to steepen that up but I'm not sure when it happened...

Hi @Aus ! I also have a 20 y.o. dekerf, and my previous HT was 2012 - that was/is still a 26er, though.

I bought a rowdy-ish 29erHT a couple of years ago - 66degree HA for example. I love it, I do ride it at the rowdier end of its intended use, and I love it. seems to do everythign well.

I do still love my dekerf - now set up rigid SS with moto bars and a plus front it's amazingly whippety on fast, flowy, singletrack, but when the trail gets steeper and techier it's definitely harder to stay fast and in control - I wouldn't take it to Rogate!

If all I was riding was woodsy, flowy singletrack, I'd probably ride the dekerf most of the time.

If you're interested in a bike for flowy woodsy singletrack, maybe your niner is pretty close to ideal? Take the Singular Swift/Pegasus as an example: recent releases have kept XC geo because that's what it's for, and going LLS would make it less good at that. 70degree HA - not the be all and end all, but a useful measure if you're going to pick one.

The Specialised Epic HT is 68.5 degrees, and that's known to be pretty slack for an XC race bike, but it's made for taking XC racers riding faster than most people ride trail bikes over race courses that are getting techier than a good slice of regional enduro courses.

Back to the Solaris you mentioned, a lot of people have said the latest Solaris is a bit dull and unresponsive until you're really giving it some hammer. Is that what you want?

So Mondraker did the head angle on that DH bike and the reach on the Foxy but the DH bike wasn’t that long and the Foxy wasn’t that slack. Loads of bikes have been low over the years, I don’t think BB heights now are much different to the original Klunkers.

The prototype Geometron combined all three but the effective seat angle looks to be only 74 deg. However I bet Geometron were the first to steepen that up but I’m not sure when it happened…

I think there's a danger when referring to bikes like the Geometron, Grim Dounut, and even Bird of conflating somethings existence with progression.

A Ferrari F40 from 1987 doesn't give a blueprint for a mainstream car in the next model cycle or decades (except perhaps a trickle down to "mainstream" Ferrari's).

I'm unconvinced that anyone under about 6ft2 needs a 500mm reach. If it was actually faster then more Pro's would be riding their sponsor's XL's with slacksets or we'd see a return to one off alloy frames that only shared a silhouette and sometimes a tubeset with the one you could buy on the shop floor.

Orange were producing the Alpine 160 and Blood back in 2010 at around 66°.Their Strange prototypes were going even slacker.

"I think there’s a danger when referring to bikes like the Geometron, Grim Dounut, and even Bird of conflating somethings existence with progression.

A Ferrari F40 from 1987 doesn’t give a blueprint for a mainstream car in the next model cycle or decades (except perhaps a trickle down to “mainstream” Ferrari’s)."

Sorry but this is a very silly statement. Yes, if were talking about the Geometron vs commuter or utility or shopping bikes then you'd have a good point. But we're not - we're talking about long travel full-sus bikes for going downhill fast yet still being able to pedal uphill.

This was the last Pinkbike enduro bike group test:

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/video-arrival-vs-range-vs-force-vs-spire-vs-capra-field-test-roundtable.html

We Are One Arrival
• Travel: 152mm rear, 160mm front
• 29" wheels
• 64° head-tube angle
• 77° seat-tube angle
• Reach: 475mm (Z2)

Norco Range C1
• Travel: 170mm rear / 170mm front
• 29" wheels
• 63.25° head angle
• Seat tube angle: 77°
• Reach: 480mm (lrg)

GT Force Carbon
• Travel: 160mm rear, 170mm front
• 29" wheels
• 63.5° head-tube angle
• 78° seat-tube angle
• Reach: 480mm (large)

Transition Spire GX Carbon
• Travel: 170mm rear, 170mm front
• 29" wheels
• 63 / 62.5° head-tube angle
• 78.1 / 77.6° seat-tube angle
• Reach: 485 / 480mm (large)

YT Capra 29 Core 4
• Travel: 165mm rear, 170mm front
• 29" wheels
• 64.2 / 64.5° head-tube angle
• 77.6 / 77.9° seat-tube angle
• Reach: 467mm (large)

The Mondraker and Geometron influence has been really significant.

I’m unconvinced that anyone under about 6ft2 needs a 500mm reach. If it was actually faster then more Pro’s would be riding their sponsor’s XL’s with slacksets or we’d see a return to one off alloy frames that only shared a silhouette and sometimes a tubeset with the one you could buy on the shop floor.

Let's not confuse what works for racers (ie the fastest possible) with what works for everyone else.

On those Pinkbike EWS bike vid checks a lot of racers seem to use a size smaller frame than what you'd want to use for everyday use.

chiefgrooveguru

The prototype Geometron combined all three but the effective seat angle looks to be only 74 deg. However I bet Geometron were the first to steepen that up but I’m not sure when it happened…

77 here, on the early production bikes (there was ain initial run of 25, i think)

Very little between effective and actual here

Scienceofficer

IMO niche and small scale purveyors have been pushing LLS since 2012/13

I've seen people claim Pole were ahead of it all, although the company was only formed in 2015

As someone who bought/demoed a decent amount of bikes between 2011 and 2018 I'd say the general consensus has it right:

2010-13 had niche brands doing bits of it but no-one with the whole package.
2013-14 saw long reach/short stem go mainstream with Nicolai leading the way.
2015-6 saw smaller brands experimenting with LLS to varying success.
2017 on and the likes of Cotic, Bird and the like had it pretty much sorted.
2018 saw the mainstream manufacturers catch up.

Then the whole 29er thing blew up and the geometry got better and better for all bikes.
As soon as one manufacturer went all-in on the new geometry the rest quickly followed as through group tests and demo days the ones that were behind the trend really stood out.

The Mondraker and Geometron influence has been really significant.

That was exactly my point, well the opposite of it.

All but one of those Large (or equivalent) bikes in your list is closest in reach to the shortest Geometron, and the longest is still shorter than their 2nd size.

And all are the same size or shorter than the previously mentioned Specialized Pitch, which was cost-cut version of the Enduro frameset from 13 years ago.

The Geometron might be the first bike to put a 515mm reach on its Median ("Longest") size, but it's also still pretty much the only brand to do it too.

So if the question is "the a date at which modern geometry was broadly introduced?", then the reason why it's not related to the geometron is in 2 parts.
1) Longer/Lower/Slacker bikes with ~6" travel that match current bikes have been available for a lot longer than that.
2) The Geometron doesn't/didn't/won't influence what the majority of people have bought and ride. There hasn't been an industry shift to suddenly copy it.

The real problem/question is why some brands previously just put more travel on XC bike geometry to make them trail bikes rather than shrinking their longer travel ones. And why was there half a decade where designers churned out 29ers with steep geometry, which are really what made the subsequent 8 years of bikes look longer and slack despite it really just being marketing re-hash for going full circle to where we were over a decade ago before 26" wheels died out.

Thanks all - good learning for me.

@nedrapier - I get what you're saying about the Dekerf and probably the Niner, and as 99% of my riding is (relatively!) fast, flowing singletrack, nothing too technical or certainly gnarly, I've always been v content.

It's a slight case of fear of missing out, but more so just trying to understand the whole geo thing as I find it gets a bit confusing!

Some of this “modern” geometry is just returning mountain biking to its roots, after the road bike obsessions of short rear ends and snappy steering messed up headangles and chainstay lengths

It's not quite as simple as this obviously, but there's a lot of truth in it. I have been riding and racing off road for 50 years, in the early days we were on single speed rigid that were steepish and more in liking to road bikes of the day. Then along came the first mtbs and they were really slack in comparison - the Dawes Ranger in the early 80's was a gate with wheels, with something like a 67' or less head angle and enough space between rear tyre and seat tube for a babies head. Within a couple of years I was on 72 74, 16 inch chainstays and a very high bottom bracket. We've been working our way back from then ever since it seems. So although I feel we have seen all the extremes before, it's just the combinations are different now I think.

At the end of the day they were all brilliant in their time, and I loved riding each and every one over the same terrain through the years. What is interesting is that the triple triangle style frame still hasn't been bettered

I'm actually planning to sell my second batch (which means it has internal dropper routing) Geometron frame, size Long, at the start of December (when my Swarf 155 arrives). Looking for £600 posted with Float X2 shock (that needs a service), Hope headset, and seat clamp.

Geometry as follows:

2015 Yeti SB5c was reported as longer and slacker than other offerings at the time. H/A is 67 I think.

I’m a recent convert to really long geometry with both a Geometron and a Nicolai. Both XLs, 540 each on the Geometron and 519 on my Nicolai. At 187cm I’m tall but not lanky-giraffe tall, both feel long but spot on for me. Interestingly they felt natural despite moving from far shorter bikes with 470 and 475 reach.

I reckon, starting around 2013, and still not finished.

You can point at a lot of individual bikes or designers but I reckon the single most important switch was long travel 29ers- or rather, the moment they decided to stop trying to package 29er wheels like 26ers, and started making bikes that worked on their own terms. That pushed wheelbases and reach up in a hurry, and though the head angles were a bit slower to get where they are, the bikes still "felt" slacker. Up til then, 26ers were getting longer but mostly in baby steps and 29ers were desperately trying to be shorter and apologising for their chainstays.

So you get, like, the 2013 Trek Remedy 29. It wasn't especially long but they made it with a small front triangle and no Bloody Stupid Massive Seatmast so you could size up easily, and literally everyone did. It wasn't massively slack, but it had adjustable geometry and could take a longer fork and anglesets with ease. It wasn't that low but it sat low in its travel so even with a longer fork it's low-ish. Trek clearly didn't do it on purpose, they were trying to make a trailbike and accidentally built the most succesful enduro bike of all time (*), but that's one of the first big brands that really put most of it together on one bike. And ended up selling it almost unchanged for about 5 years.

(* yes I always say that, yes I still ride one and love it. I'm 5'10 and ride an XL with an angleset and a 160mm fork and offset bushings, which are all signs of how they got it wrong, but what a bike)

monkeyboyjc
Full Member

Gary fisher if we are talking big wheels and xc geo – he introduced shorter stems on xc/trail bikes with 29r wheels in the early 2000’s iirc, just didn’t kick off all that quick and become mainstream for several years…

Yeah but, they were not very good. Fisher had some of the ideas right but it's kind of like gothic architecture, it's only when you put it all together that you really get a great bike, and generally if you tried one of them in isolation or without really putting it together with other changes, it just didn't work that well. The G2 fork offset became pretty much standard for a while though, that one definitely worked- though ironically not always on the bikes they put it in.

According to Wikipedia, probably about 300BC

<blockquoteedd>
Full Member

I’m actually planning to sell my second batch (which means it has internal dropper routing) Geometron frame, size Long, at the start of December (when my Swarf 155 arrives). Looking for £600 posted with Float X2 shock (that needs a service), Hope headset, and seat clamp

Shame - can't you grow it to a Longest ?

It’s a slight case of fear of missing out,

If this is just a "should I buy a new bike?" thread, then the answer is yes!

Probably.

It could be that you're a "fast, flowy, singletrack" kind of rider because that's what's always been the most fun on the bikes you've had.

Maybe pushing the boat out and getting something more aggressive than you'd though, might open your world up to whole different realm of riding. Maybe a latest gen Solaris max, a Pipedream Moxie, Stif Morph, Sonder Signal, Stanton Switch9er would set you on a different course of fun?

Trouble is, that's tricky to find out on half-day a test ride!

And if fast, flowy singletrack is what you've got locally, then that's what you're going to be riding, whatever bike you're on.

Shout out to to Gary Fisher for looking to the future with G2 geometry and the Mondraker with their fwd geometry.
For me when I got my Process 153 in 2014 it was a huge step up.
Id demoed a bronson which all the reviews raved about and not thought it was anything special at all but the Process was just so much more fun and felt 'in' the bike more than any other I'd ridden, which is good as I bought it without a test.

No its geo looks like an xc bike, so you can't say it's settled now.