The Street > The Bike Shop
hardtail mountain bikes
Cole:
Jonathan, are you happy with your current frame? Would going up a size or two in it be worth it?
I've ridden no true DH/FR/XC hardtail frame, apart from my Le Toy 24, but even that is closer to the DJ end of the spectrum. Although, I did everything with that frame when I was younger and just pedalled my ass off and didn't care. Would maybe something on the older/cheaper end of the full suspension side of things be something you'd look at?
jonathan:
I generally like my current frame but I know it's a size too small. I can't buy the exact same frame in a bigger size- Surly discontinued the OG Karate Monkey and my shop can't buy Surly stuff anymore unless I get someone to give me a bro-deal. so while I am thinking of getting a new frame, I am considering a whole new ride setup.
cmc4130:
--- Quote from: master on December 01, 2014, 06:00:09 PM ---
29er tires typically measure ~29.25" tall inflated. "26" tires typically measure ~26.25" tall inflated.
650b tires ("27.5" is absolutely a marketing term and nothing more) typically measure ~27"-27.25" tall when inflated. The wheel size change is minimal and makes very little difference when riding, most of the "improvements" on the new breed of 650b enduro bikes are due to changes in geometry, setup (including wide bars + short stem), and refined suspension technology.
For me, actually riding a MTB in the woods is 50% climbing and 50% descending. For that, I need a bike with enough room to get my weight forward while climbing, and then be stable while descending. Coming from bmx I used to think that a short TT was good so I can throw the bike around but that seriously hurt my MTB riding. I hated every Medium sized frame I owned due to the cramped climbing geometry, and now that I am on Larges my riding has improved as well.
DH racers, who ride 100% downhill at mach chicken speed, are even going as long as possible on their top tubes. The school of thought is progressing and geometry is changing to reflect that.
This is all my 2 cents and should not be taken as anything more than that.
--- End quote ---
Good points. I don't spend a ton of time improving my climbing, so I realize a true xc/am bike is better for climbing.
Not sure I can agree on DH bikes being as long as possible. I've been renting all the latest demo bikes at the mountains every summer since 2009 and to me it seems like the "reach" difference is about the same as Dirt Jumpers, which run shorter than XC/AM bikes. For example, compare the "Reach" on the TRANSITION TR500 to their other AM/XC bikes. The XL is for the Downhill bike is shorter than the XL for the other bikes. http://www.transitionbikes.com/2015/Home.cfm#0
I noticed that when I'm riding DH, I actually like a shorter frame (Medium) because it puts me behind the bottom bracket most of the time. When you're going Downhill you do not want to be leaned way out forward.... It's a more upright Motocross stance.
master:
I was talking specifically about World Cup level racers... They are going as long as possible. Longer frames plus offset headsets even for the average height racers. And as always, WC geometry trickles down into all DH bikes because going fast is the name of the game and nobody does that better than pro racers.
And I disagree about keeping your weight "behind the BB"... Centered weight will keep your front end planted, the last thing you want is to wash the front out in a turn due to too little pressure on the front tire.
Admiral Ackbar:
master with the knowledge.
all mountain/trail/enduro bikes are a great example of the aforementioned trickle-down.
they have significantly longer reach, as well as front centers and wheelbases compared to just a few years ago. the nomad is a pretty good example of this, which has is longer just about everywhere than a full blown dh rig from just a few seasons ago. times are a changin' (and i need myself a fuckin mtb)
this is some epic thread derailment.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version