[Closed] What do you think of the new, long geometry trend? (Mondraker, Kona, GT, etc)

If someone says "I prefer bikes with short wheelbases because they are more "chuckable" I will vomit.

The long wheel base was enough to rule Mondraker out for me.

I'm having a hoot on my Process 🙂

I prefer bikes with short wheelbases because they are more "chuckable"

I prefer bikes with short wheelbases because they are more "chuckable"

I concur. I find short wheelbases are a positive boon when I'm getting rowdy on the trails.

Short wheelbases are not only more chuckable, but better suited for 'aggressive XC'

I'm having a hoot on my Process

short wheelbases are more flickable 😀

short wheelbases are more flickable

unicycles are where it's at!

I just bought a frame with adjustable wheelbase.. 😯

No idea where to set it.

My process 153 is very chuckable, got more airtime on it than any other bike I've had

Whether its the longness of it all or something else about the bike its just incredibly confidence inspiring on anything technical

Riding an older shorter bike that i used to think was chuckable just feels cramped and unstable now

If I had a bike with an #enduro compatible long top tube, I'd have no excuse for doing badly in races- viva la shortbike.

Short wheelbases help on all them ridiculously tight uphill switchbacks cut into the side of the hill that you find in trailcentres. (Runs for cover 😉 )

If someone says "I prefer bikes with short wheelbases because they are more "chuckable" I will vomit.

Likewise.

That said, increasing front centre without increasing rear centre is moronic.

^ couldn't agree more. A bike without two centres is next to useless. It's all I look for in a new bike now.

Im liking it as i must have short legs and a long body: the longer TT means i can size down but still have the long TT i want and, given ive sized down, i also get a shorter seattube which is better for running a decent travel dropper post.

I like it, but there is a limit for me.

Plus I really dislike the whole Mondraker zero stem thing. Long TT with a reasonably short ~50mm stem is about spot on.

Doesn't introduce some of the weird understeer effect the Zero stems do.

Well I tested a Mondraker and found it very twitchy and unstable and the front wheel kept wanting to tuck under. Scariest bike I've ridden in a long time.

Doubtless someone will tell me it's my technique or something, but it's not for me.

Conversely I'm not a fan as I have long legs and short body so the longer top tube is now putting me annoyingly between sizes. Large seat tube with medium top tube would be perfect but is a bit tricky....

However I've not actually ridden a new frame and so could be convinced otherwise...

Plus I really dislike the whole Mondraker zero stem thing. Long TT with a reasonably short ~50mm stem is about spot on.

Doesn't introduce some of the weird understeer effect the Zero stems do.

I'd like to try one, but my brain thinks it will be sh1te, as not enough weight on the front wheel. 30 or 40mm stem might be good though.

All new Mondrakers come with 30mm stems.

Traditionally I would've always been in the 'liking small frames' camp so when Mondraker first introduced me to Forwsrd Geometry I was already looking for faults.
The fact is that I know love it.
It ride faster and more confidently than anything else I've used.

Boriselbrus - When they first jump on FG a lot of people feel that the front end is a bit twitchy and like they might lose the front wheel. It's one of the reasons for moving away from a 10mm stem.
After a while though you realise that you can ride the bike with waaaay more weight over the front wheel and that totally eliminates the 'wandering'.

It's never going go suit everyone but a longer wheel base makes a lot of sense. It's a more confident ride downhill as it's longer and lower, it's harder to pitch yourself over the handlebars and you don't get that front wheel lift you get on some bikes when climbing the steep stuff.

As I say, it's never going to suit everyone but if you're going to give it a try just do so with an open mind and let the ride and speed dictate your opinion.
That's what we asked the mag guys in the UK to do and they all, uninamously, loved the bikes.

Cheers

Richie

The strange thing that Mondraker missed with their first attempt at forward geometry and zero/10mm stems, is that when you pair a stem that short with a typical shape handlebar you end up with a negative effective stem length! In other words, grips behind the steering axis. This will feel weird and will cause active instability when you lean on the bars.

With most handlebars once you're down to 30-40mm actual stem length you're at roughly zero effective stem length.

I like longer bikes these days.

I've always been between sizes (top end of mediums, low end of large) and have always gone for the shorte bike on the basis that it's more fun even though they may have been a tad short. I remember demoing a large 05 Soesh Enduro and it felt like a barge, whereas the the medium felt ok.

My Rune changed my mind...the longer bike is much more stable and climbs better too. It works well with a short stem and side bars. The combination of slack head angle and steep seat angle works too, especially compared to the old Enduros which both were slack.

The thing about the 0mm forward geometry, is it was never going to be good enough to make people buy such a horrendous looking bike.

Had a quick spin on the new Alpine 160 650b the other day and it felt absolutely mint - long tt, 35mm stem. You soon get used to swinging longer bikes around tight switchbacks.

The thing about the 0mm forward geometry, is it was never going to be good enough to make people buy such a horrendous looking bike.

This.

Keep hearing this thing of shorter bikes being more "fun" much like 26" wheels.

Guess it depends on your buzz factor how you define fun - for me, its going as fast as possible, so a long, slack 650B bike suits. And comparative tests on the same tracks prove not only does it feel faster, but it is faster on the clock too so I'm happy with that......

I've no idea what category my bike falls into now! Seem to be fettling what I've got and enjoying it. Dunno what it is any more 🙂

Well, had the proper "Chuckable" experience with an old style bike; very expensive that, not being able to work for 6 weeks. Thing is, most of my riding is on the very steep and twisty stuff (in all honesty, I'm pretty crap at it) and on that bike it was a constant battle trying not to bury the front wheel. Putting any weight over the front wheel for braking and steering was really rather scary.

That said, increasing front centre without increasing rear centre is moronic

This is the bit I don't get. I can see that, if you want a slacker head angle (as most people seem to) then you need a shorter stem to keep the steering feeling the same. So, if you want to keep the reach to the bars the same, it makes sense to make the TT longer. But that increases the front centre, so what do you do about the rear centre (i.e. chainstays)?

Make them longer too, in order to keep the FC/RC ratio (and the balance of the bike) the same, but accept that the wheelbase will increase? Or shorten the RC to keep the wheelbase the same, but accept that the weight will then be biased more to the rear?

I was in the "i want a smaller bike so it's more chuckable camp", so ran a small frame and short stem, then got a MTB that actually fitted me with a short stem. My body was in a better position to work the bike so it ended up being more planted and more chuckable.

Seems silly now that running it small was the thing to do, i already went through the same experiences on a BMX, one that fitted well served me much better than one that was too big or small.

But yea, of course if you went to big you'd lose chuckability, but if you went too small your body would be in the wrong position making it uncontrollable or less chuckable, it's that balancing act.

it's expensive but to find out what's too big, you have to go too big, just as you have to go too small to find out what is too small.

Im a hair over 5ft 10 running a large 29er, the bike is always all sorts of sideways, in the air, can turn on a sixepence if i really wanted.

This is the bit I don't get. I can see that, if you want a slacker head angle (as most people seem to) then you need a shorter stem to keep the steering feeling the same. So, if you want to keep the reach to the bars the same, it makes sense to make the TT longer. But that increases the front centre, so what do you do about the rear centre (i.e. chainstays)?

JCL seems to hate short chainstays regardless of what bike they are on. I can see the advantage of having a longer TT, shorter stem and a longer wheelbase, but lengthening the chainstays too much IMO will make a bike handle like a pig. I can't imagine ultra short stays and a long front centre would be much fun either.

Perhaps it's personal preference, but the bikes i've ridden with longer chainstays have been dull. Stable, but boring.

The strange thing is some of these new fangled long front centre/top tube/wheelbase designs aren't too dissimilar to a Specialized Pitch. And for that reason it can only be a good thing cos I've never had so much fun on one bike. My geeky geometry spreadsheet bike selecta makes for interesting reading. For a large size the reach / wheelbase is as follows:
Mondraker Dune 480mm / 1222mm
Kona Process 153 460mm / 1190mm
Canyon Strive Race 468mm / 1207mm
Pitch 480mm / 1183mm

If you don't adjust your style/riding position to the bikes geometry then the front will wash out and feel nervous because there is insufficient weight on it.

Even though at 6' with 33" inside leg I'm between longer size M bikes and size Ls, and have in principle subscribed to the 'short but chuckable' school, I now have a large 26" Foxy XR which I love. I find no problem at all with the longer top tube/minimal stem combo, the front wheel doesn't tuck under (more of a steep geometry/long stem thing surely?) and doesn't feel twitchy. It manoeuvres exceptionally well, and handles tight corners better than a large 2013 Spicy (which has similar slack angles, but shorter top tube/longer stem).

So yes - Forward Geometry wins an unlikely convert.

I have had my Summum for a year now, and its easily the best bike I have ever owned. It descends insanely well, the most stable bike ever. I have just fitted the adjustable geo kit, and the long wheelbase chips, hopefully this will increase its awesomeness! For long travel bikes I am completely sold.

[URL= http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/dyanetski/10392366_10154914195140106_4507556063001943420_n_zps8f671a3a.jp g" target="_blank">http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/dyanetski/10392366_10154914195140106_4507556063001943420_n_zps8f671a3a.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

Chuckable bike?

[img] [/img]

What the hell does it mean? easy to jump? or turns fast? Serious question.

The Foxy XR just seems to suit me, yeah it fell out of the ugly tree but if you buy a bike for how it looks over how it rides you're an idiot. I also think that bikes with this sort of geometry are quite terrain specific. The Foxy handles well enough at the likes of GT or Inners XC but that's because it's not getting pushed, show it something steep, slippy and scary and it clicks immediately.

Interestingly I had a loan of a Rocky Mountain MSL 750 for a couple of weeks there, it had a 50mm stem and felt far more twitchy than the Mondy. One thing I did notice is that I could push the front end of the Rocky a bit harder so I'm going to try the 30mm stem next. Also, bear in mind Mondraker took 10mm off the top tube this year, so the 30mm is only really a 20mm 😉

BTW Northwind, you had an Ellsworth so your comment on looks is invalid 😉

So, in the current fashon trend of short chainstays & long top tubes. Why are Orange speccing 455mm chainstays on a Segment 29er and 443 on 650b Crush. I guess it lengthens the wheelbase increasing stability. But in reality does it affect the feel of the bikes ability to loft the front wheel over logs/fallen trees? I'm sitting on the fence buying a 650b Clockwork with 440mm chainstays, which seems to be bucking the current trend from most other manufacurers (struggling to get a test ride in my size without commiting to a deposit).

What the hell does it mean? easy to jump? or turns fast? Serious question.

To me, it means you can turn into a corner really fast (the turning, rather than your actual forward speed) and the bike will change direction fast and possibly the back will slip out a little bit in a nice progressive and satisfying way.

From the physics point of view, which is backed up by learning to ride fast at Swinley, this is achieved by having your weight a bit further back, hence short chainstays being a factor. But if your weight is furhter back there's less weight on the front which means it's more vulnerable to being knocked off-line - hence longer stays = stability at speed.

I think, anyway!

ime shortish chainstays lets you rail round corners easier but a steeper seat angle and long reach but short stem/wide bars stretches you out and forward so you keep the front weighted, you have to lean into the turns at the front a bit more to get the most out of it
Im no good at explaining this stuff and I really dont understand ate curve a graphs etc

Leaning on the front is for fast wide turns - slow tight ones you need to be back.

I know it isn't the STW way, but I haven't tried one so will reserve judgement until I have.

Didn't that Team Robot article kind of rubbish the whole Mondraker thing Their bikes are actually no longer than the equivalent Session/Demo etc??

Here - http://theteamrobot.blogspot.ie/2014/05/zero-zero-length-stems.html

yeah see what you mean molgrips but a longer reach and short stem/wide bars dont prevent you from sticking your ass out further back but short stem/wider bars and maybe even the slacker HA? mean you can lean the bike over to the side easier and dig in as your turning so you dont loose grip at the front?

thats how it should work in my head, if only I could translate that into lighting fast trail riding 😉

Oh I dunno.. I'd have to ride one of these things to comment on the Mondraker concept itself 🙂

That Team Robot article is hilarious.
They make they're dislike of FG pretty clear from the word go and claim that Brook didn't like it yet in the next breath they say it's no different to a Session!

Also - consider this. Brook MacDonald won the Val D'sere WC on a FG Summum.

Finally - no ones claiming FG was ground break technology in the DH market, it's not, DH bikes have always been long and ran direct mount stems. What's new was taking this idea and putting into applications where it wasn't common place - Trail bikes for example.

I understand some people are sceptical. I was too. But the real proof of FG is in riding one and I urge anyone with the chance to do so.
Sure some won't get on with it (just as I still don't get on with 29ers), some won't ride it because of the looks and some will always slag it off just 'because' but a lot of people WILL get on with it.

Chuckable

[img][url= https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3887/14991637429_9e71d2da87_o.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3887/14991637429_9e71d2da87_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/oQL4vp ]jpeg[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/people/66651884@N00/ ]martinddd[/url], on Flickr[/img]

richiethesilverfish - Member
That Team Robot article is hilarious.
They make they're dislike of FG pretty clear from the word go and claim that Brook didn't like it yet in the next breath they say it's no different to a Session!

I think their point was more that the bikes aren't actually longer, whilst fitting a 10mm stem makes them shorter than some of the competition, in a lot of cased. Plus the 10mm stem comined with swept bars then has the effect of putting the rider behind the steering axis.

Mondraker have pulled back from the 10mm stems, they're at 30mm-ish now - which again is really no different to a lot of bikes out there on 35mm stems.

Mondraker make some pretty cool bikes - just not really all that convinced that the geometry is all that different.

its the FG in trail bikes thats more interesting than the nicher DH bikes

The Mondraker Zero Geometry trail bikes have always been significantly longer than the competition, and still are. Reach on an 2014 XL Dune was 497mm, Reach on a 2015 XL Foxy is 518mm. That is 30-40mm longer than similar bikes from other manufacturers.

what we need is steeper head angles and longer stems 🙂 😉 🙂

Shandy - Member
The Mondraker Zero Geometry trail bikes have always been significantly longer than the competition, and still are. Reach on an 2014 XL Dune was 497mm, Reach on a 2015 XL Foxy is 518mm. That is 30-40mm longer than similar bikes from other manufacturers.

Looking at them now - yes, they're much more extreme.

Mondraker have pulled back from the 10mm stems, they're at 30mm-ish now - which again is really no different to a lot of bikes out there on 35mm stems.

Also as I mentioned earlier, they shortened the top tube by 10 mm this year so they put the 30mm on to compensate.

Don't confuse a long reach with a long wheel base.
The long frame and short stem means that you maintain the same riding position as you would traditionally - it's the long frame that makes the bikes (especially the trail bikes) unique.

I think there are clear benefits to longer bikes, but there's a limit. Furthermore, it depends on the stuff you realistically, regularly ride. They will come into their own on steep, fast terrain. But all things being equal, on more everyday trails, a SLIGHTLY steeper, shorter bike will be more nimble and involving.

E.g. for the trails I ride (red trail centres mainly), the Whyte T130 "trail bike" was far more involving, poppy and smile inducing to me than the "enduro " whyte g150. The latter mopped the trail up. The former made me want to play with the trail.

Wheelbase is the sum of chainstay length, reach, fork offset and (fork A-C length x cosine head angle). Fork offset and A-C length are fixed by the fork choices out there, so frame builders can only change the other three aspects.

This just so ugly that when it is reincarnated in carbon it just might need to be mine

http://www.evanscycles.com/products/mondraker/crafty-r-29er-2015-mountain-bike-ec074248?country=GB&currency=GBP&gclid=COPT5eDfqcICFUPLtAodq0MAew&gclsrc=aw.ds

All depends what sort of riding you do doesn't it. Long and slack feels good on the downs with modern bikes also feeling ok on the ups. It doesn't mean a bike with a shorter tt, longer stem and/or less then 750mm bars is redundant, it'll actually be better over certain terrain.

In the early 90's we all moved away from slack 80's bikes as that suited the fashion and the type of riding we were doing. Didn't make it wrong, just as the current trend is not necessarily right. Most important thing to do is work out what will be best for the riding you do, not what you think you do.

The problem with forward geo is you don't know until you try it, it really does need to be riden to be believed. The problem with this forum is everyone has an opinion on bikes they have not ridden! Much better to have a guess eh?!

As far as the length overall of the bike goes, my Summum is certainly longer than a large Demo, by quite a margin. At Cwncarn they have to adjust the top part of the uplift trailer for it, lol.