Hindsight is 20/20, they say. Mountain bike geometry has taken a big leap forward in less than five years. One of those improvements - steep seat tube angles - has inspired much ridicule about old-school mountain bike designs. "How did anyone ride those things?" Compare the performance of a modern trail bike to any vanguard design from or before the year 2000 and you might believe an alien race had recently intervened to alter the course of our sport.
Spend a day climbing on a bike with a 76- or 77-degree seat tube angle and you'd wonder how anyone managed that task with anything slacker. How could early bike designers miss something so obvious? To discover the answer to that question, one need only perform the following test:
Roll up to a steep, challenging descent aboard your Pole Machine. Extend its 170-millimeter dropper post all the way to the top and give it a go. I'll take a risk here and say you'll completely understand the remainder of this article in less than 20 meters. With the seatpost fully extended, the steep-angled seat tube positions your saddle exactly where your body needs to hover. Nearly every effort to control the bike is impeded by the saddle's location.
Turns out that you can't have a steep seat tube angle without a proper dropper seatpost. First, steep seat tube angles position the saddle much taller over the bike - awkward! Further hindering the rider is the fact that the difference between your seated and standing position over the saddle narrows dramatically as the angle arcs upward as it nears vertical. If you haven't put two and two together, it was the widespread acceptance of the dropper seatpost that made steep seat tube angles possible.
Before the dropper post was included in the mountain bike equation, slacker seat tube angles offered a mechanical solution. For the same leg length, the slack seat angle's saddle sits significantly lower over the bike. When the rider stands to descend, the forward and upward movement away from the seat creates three to five inches of free space for maneuvering the bike. Without a dropper post (or an Allen wrench in hand to manually lower it), 74 degrees was the upper limit for seat angles before the saddle's position at
full extension became a serious handicap on the downs. The old-school, 73-degree seat tube angle offered a compromise between climbing and descending when dropper technology was not available.
So you have the Gravity Dropper, not modern frame designers or an alien master race, to thank for steep seat tube angles and the wonderfully improved climbing performance this simple improvement has bestowed upon today's trail bikes.
@bde1024 The caption says "illustrates". That means it shows a demonstration, not necessarily the actual use. I bet @RichardCunningham is well aware how to use a dropper... even at his age. ;-)
Please look at this graphic showing comparison of Remedy with 150 dropper and Session, both in same size: www.pinkbike.com/photo/16210339
Yes downhillers ride with saddles quite high up and they don't moan about it.
DH bikes designed with a different goal? Hey, there’s geometron there and a Pole... i mean... hello. think again, these are short travel DH bikes, they are designed with one and only thing in mind: emulate DH bike handling down the hill. People who actually can ride will even use DH tyres on them. I gave you a juxtaposed picture of session and remedy showing how extremely close these two bikes are, how seat, pedals and bars are located in almost very same place... It’s right there, Jesus Christ... if you can pedal a Pole Machine with DH tyres up a hill, you can also pedal up a Session if you only get normal drivetrain, dropper and lockout on it. Not only that, if that Pole uses a coil shock, and that Session 9.9 has X2...that session is lighter.
There is no such thing as being awake as fuk. Sorry... there’s just denying seeing what is right in front of you
But at the end of the day... I've had experience with 170 and 200mm droppers on 135 and 160mm travel 29'r trail/enduro bikes with 76 and 77 degree SA's. So for me, slammed droppers are always in a perfect position far away from my body while I'm standing and descending and the rear wheel has never contacted the seat.
I'm not really sure what else you were trying to say?? I will say, yes DH and big enduro bikes definitely blur the lines of purpose... so much so that I don't believe DH bikes really serve much of purpose beyond DH racing anymore. Anyway, take care and have a wonderful evening!
@dubod22 I am not saying pro Enduro racers should use DH bikes, I am saying amateurs riding in the mountains are better off using 180-200mm of travel.
@Honduh2000 Modern DH bikes have 0-10mm travel more in the rear than in the front and sag no more than 3% more in the rear than in the front as compared to Enduro bikes. Which leaves us with no more than 1 degree seat angle difference. There is also nothing stopping DH bike design from putting the saddle in exactly same spot as it would be on Enduro bike. As to power generation it’s the other way around. Let’s stopusing the term dh bike all together, A bike with 200mm travel, regular drivetrain, dropper, lock out will pedal up a liason stage just as well as Enduro bike given they use same tyres (which they often do). Racing wise DH bike will pedal worse where the clock is ticking, on the race stages. Efficiency wise tyres play a huge role. There is big, instantly perceivable difference between different tyre types, for instance DHF/SS combo will roll evidently faster than 2 DHFs and defo faster than 2 Magic Maries and that is not un uncommon sight on amateur/pro enduro bikes
@dave-f Dh bikes have seat high up for 2 reasons: rear wheel bum clearance, using seat to control the bike. BMX bikes require utilizing full available range of motion, it is power sport. Small wheels help to. The saddle is there only to not get the frame in your ass. You don’t slide the bike around corners either.
BTW im 175 and using 100mm dropper so the saddle is at a position I can actually use it to control my bike. And it's never in my way. As on my dh bike I always set the saddle to the highest position where it doesn't bother me when cornering but still can be used as a additional contact point. Can't really lean against a saddle with my knees...
Not sure why he's downvoted he has a point
Now why should we care... the longer the dropper, the longer has to be the uninterrupted section of seat tube. You can’t just take any bike and say, I want more seat drop. It has profound implications on frame design, meeting other factors like susoension design, desired chainstay length or BB drop. With steeper seat angles and longer straight sections of seat tubes you are inevitably pushing the shock more forward which leads to longer yokes, longer seat stay tubing, longer links which is nit desireable. Mote or less doable depending on the suspension design.
RC has some really weird reasoning there. Steep seat tube with a fixed seat position makes it easier to shift your weight behind the saddle and allows you to keep your hips, COM of your body closer to be above BB. We can all see it on the pic of him rolling the slab. The steep seat angle has nothing to do with droppers I claim... it has to do with climbing steep stuff when seated (if you have to) keeping your com above bb in such cases, instead of inserting the tip of the saddle straight into your bum hole (talking from experience) but it also allows for more comfortable position on a bike with really long reach. Finally it allows for making chainstays shorter on longer travel bikes.
Spesh - bring the Enduro Evo back! 180 front and rear, mullet! Call it Endemo
Cheers!
Having a saddle height lower than the top of your tire is a lifesaver because you don't have a saddle to catch the crotch of your riding shorts on really steep drops, or when you move forward to resume a seated position while or just before you raise the post.
You do what you like, but if it fits, there are very few downsides to a longer dropper.
Off course use whatever you want... there's just little point for it and "we want more drop" negatively influences bike design trends. I am soon into fully custom bike market so I don't care anymore. Well I really couldn't give less shit... people ride Exos and Snake skins on Enduro bikes... shitty, little shocks on Santa Cruzes, Yetis, Unnos... electronic gears, carbon rims and air shocks on DH bikes, believe lock out makes their bike worse - the list of awkward things people do and believe is too long to adress.
So, this past weekend my flavour of the weekend was a Santa Cruz Megatower, and I managed to grab it for 3 days and 3 rides (Remembrance Day long weekend). It's a 160/160 29'r bike and it came specc'd with a 150mm dropper (my previous bike was a 135/160 and had a 170 dropper). I have a good relationship with the shop and mentioned our thoughts around droppers of various lengths and what were the positives and negatives of going as long as possible. They got on board and gave me a 170mm and 200mm (Reverbs) to try on the frame as well as the 150mm. By the way, a quick survey of the shop guys and mechs... and every single person across various bikes have all moved to the longest travel droppers that will fit on their bikes with their heights (slammed when dropped and works for their height at full extension... many of which are now on 200mm).
So, first day with the 150mm... And I guess because I'm used to a 170mm I noticed the seat in my way, right away. During steeper descending and then especially during jumping and landing. During tech descents, I would be moving my body around and down (not necessarily back) and I would unexpectedly hit the seat. During a couple jumps, in the air, when bringing the bike up to me, the seat would again, unexpectedly hit my ass. Same again on some heavier and not perfectly executed (:-)) landings. I got used to it as the day went on, but felt limited. Notes: used full travel a number of times and gave myself one pretty good ass buzz!... I seem to buzz my ass in this one steep chunky rocky rolly thing with a pretty good g-out mid way. Even with today's forward geometry I still feel I need to get pretty far back and tend to buzz my ass most of the time on that section. Used to do it pretty regularly on my 135/160 with a 170 dropper as well.
Next day, I put the 170mm in and right away felt more at home... this was what I was used to. Felt great... I did feel the seat a couple of times on steep descents and some jumps, but I think because of muscle memory and because it's what I was so used to, it didn't seem to bother me... it was just sort of there... if that makes sense? Notes: again used full travel a number of times and buzzed my ass again on the same section... not quite as bad though, just a light buzz.
Next day, tried the 200mm. I've demo'd a bike with a 200 before and tried a friends... seemed to work well both times but never really thought too much about it. This time I was more conscious of what was going on. Over the same trails, terrain and jumps... I specifically noted how I had more room... and i liked it, a lot. More room to maneuver without being limited by the seat on tech steeps, in the air on jumps and maybe landings as well since I basically almost never touched the seat. Notes: again used full travel a number of times and though I once again got a little buzz in the section, it was barely a buzz, just a little touch to the shorts. It actually seemed as if the longer the dropper I used, the less buzz I was experiencing?! Maybe since a longer dropper moves the seat out of the way more, and more forward, on that section I don't move as far back? Hmmm...
Final result: For me, more dropper was better and I didn't seem to experience any negatives... potentially even allows for less ass buzz... even on a 160mm bike. 200 seems to be the max I can go on most bikes with my height. So, I can understand what you're trying to say with your theory, but in practice, for me, longer was better and I experienced the opposite of what I believe you were trying to say? In the future I will definitely be using the longest droppers that will fit me and my bike.
Hope that's helpful! Cheers.
I sometimes feel like the big companys do invent problems instead of solutions so they can keep selling stuff instead of just take a short break and think for a very short amount of time because that's all that would be needed to just not have to solve those problems.
Boost is even better! 110x20 is too stiff so let's try 15x100, OK that's not sooo nice why not go 15x110. Oh that's better, how about going 110x20 but let's make it a new thing.
Happy to leave this circuss.
Why am i here telling people who are obviously happy with longer droppers that they are not happy? I hate people who do that to me whenever they do it! Like an a*shole leading D.A.R.E assembly or a preacher telling premarital sex is awful... ehhh.
Why can’t we just let the world do whatever it is doing, why do we think we can make the world better, why are we such arrogant a*sholes to believe that universe will reward us.
There is something bitter and mouth cringing in talking down to people trying to make sense, and then something liberating in just saying: “fkng Joey”, no matter how wrong we maybe... sometimes a douche needs to call someone a douche for no good reason to be less douchy...
Time to do some drug and install a new crankset... The SX on Seam cranks does not mean Super Cross, it means “Sucks”.ripped pedal thread off on 10th ride...
Peace everybody!
The pursuant loss of control ended up with me crashing my perineum into the saddle back, and tearing my urethra, with resultant (excessive) blood loss through my penis, and an incredible amount of pain. I had to wear a catheter for 3 weeks and almost lost my job as a bike courier.
catching the crotch of my shorts has happened a few times since (every few years or so), but believe me, it only takes once.
I've been buzzed by a tire a few times and will take it any. Day. Of. The. Week.
One of my bikes is a 26'er hardtail fromm 2005. I drilled a hole in the frame for an internally routed 6" dropper instead of the 4".
Night and day difference for the better, way more room to manoeuvre.
Of course, to each their ow, and YMMV.
The reason so far as I see it is that mountain bikes and their geometry pulled pretty heavily from late 80s road and touring bikes, thus the 15+ year prevalence of 71 HTA 73 STA and lower reach values. Once reach was expanded to make a longer and more stable platform it allowed the STA to steepen and give the rider better traction on uphills.
But otherwise, yeah, no one cares.
Still funny to me that the majority of fatbikers don't get rowdy in the snow. That's what it's all about!
Do fat bikes go up and down super steep terrain typically. I find that the steep seat tube angles are not necessary for more moderate climbing and pretty terrible if you are doing much flat terrain riding.
I'll call you on that risk, the 79* STA bike I ride with 170 post is absolutely no more in the way than what a 73* rigid post would be at the same height (full climb). I'll rotate further forward and take a position over the long front center, like a rider should anyways.
That FC/STA relationship could have been done with rigid posts.
No way is it any more difficult to roll a steep section with a fully extended post on a 78 degree angle than it is on a 73 degree angle... both those angles would send you straight over the f*cking bars. And actually, if for some reason you forgot to lower your post (it happened)... a seat sitting on a 78 degree seat tube would actually have been easier to get behind than a seat on a 73 degree seat tube.
Slack seat angles were solely the result of overall bike design and geometry back then. If you stuck a 78 degree seat tube on those bikes that had super short (compared with today) top tubes and reach, you would have been hitting your knees on the bars constantly while pedaling. Would have felt like pedaling a tricycle. Also back then, the common theme was to ride the smallest bike size you could to reduce weight and because it made the bike more "maneuverable" or "gave it better handling". So the solution to having a tiny front triangle that had a seat far enough away so that you could still pedal, was crazy slack seat tube angles.... not because of droppers.
No way is it any more difficult to roll a steep section with a fully extended post on a 78 degree angle than it is on a 73 degree angle... both those angles would send you straight over the f*cking bars. And actually, if for some reason you forgot to lower your post (it happened)... a seat sitting on a 78 degree seat tube would actually have been easier to get behind than a seat on a 73 degree seat tube.
Slack seat angles were solely the result of overall bike design and geometry back then. If you stuck a 78 degree seat tube on those bikes that had super short (compared with today) top tubes and reach, you would have been hitting your knees on the bars constantly while pedaling. Would have felt like pedaling a tricycle. Also back then, the common theme was to ride the smallest bike size you could to reduce weight and because it made the bike more "maneuverable" or "flickable" or "gave it better handling". So the solution to having a tiny front triangle that had a seat far enough away so that you could still pedal the bike, was slack seat tube angles.... not because of droppers.
As bike design got better, more stretched out and people started riding properly sized bike... there was more room for steeper seat tube angles. It took some companies longer than others to see the light or evolve, but most are pretty much there now or will be there within a year or two.
As for the seat tube angle thing itself, I do agree with you that it seems that there seems to be a bigger focus nowadays on seated climbing than there was back in the days. It also shows in the saddle orientation people seem to have now. I prefer my saddle low and tilted backwards (nose up). It is a more comfortable orientation to have when sitting on a low saddle but also when descending steep. To have your belly or chest against when it gets really steep. The current trend of the more level or even nose down saddle orientation may be nice for seated pedaling on a high saddle though it seems less pleasant to bump into when you have your body over the rear wheel. Apparently seated pedaling is primary concern now and as except for Specialized no one seems to have produced a saddle that tilts back as it drops, I can imagine that in these cases you just want the saddle forwards and as much out of the way when it is dropped. For descending that is.
My current frame is more modern and has a steeper STA than what I had. But I compensated for that by getting a seatpost with about an inch setback.
But also benefits use of dropper not the other way round?
I can’t give you many references but there are a few that look at sustained power output increase with rearward (mid shoe) cleat position and seat forward body adjustment. (Not that seat forward is the primary reason for steep seat tubes). The theory is greater use and power from Primary power muscles, and a marked decrease in neuromuscular stress from smaller associated riding muscles. More power from the big guns, less loss of energy and non-directed force of smaller muscles.
For me, I switched to flats this season (primarily to learn and practice for level 2 PMBIA certification) and I have discovered that on flats, I FEEL like have larger platform to power through, and combined with a little more forward seat position I FEEL like I have more power on climbs and steep moves. (Sitting on the nose of your saddle and maintaining good cadence will get my RM Altitude up most climbs without too much strain). I think some (all?j of this is from the ability to adjust foot (and leg and hip) position in different situations, rather than being clipped into a single foot position which is good for some things (like sustained XC spinning) but not necessarily ideal overall. (The idea that a single cleat position for clipless is optimal for all riding is fundamentally wrong). I think flat pedals force riders to improve and use better techniques and body position which may really be the benefit. On downhills and descents I’ll take flat pedals any day, for the same reason that they allow so much more positional adjustment. Maybe I t’s the riders greater ability to move and adapt that bring the benefits.
The seat tube angle is not really that important overall. A good rider can adjust to the rig and find necessary efficiencies.
Check out:
www.bikejames.com/strength/newly-updated-flat-pedal-revolution-manifesto-the-science-and-logic-of-using-flats-to-improve-your-riding
www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/bikefit/2011/04/power-to-the-pedal-cleat-position
I've got six pairs of Catalyst pedals. On my commuter bikes, mountainbikes, BMX and mountain unicycle. I like them and anything smaller feels uncomfortable now.
Look at MD trails in Trail Forks. Mostly flat with a 1 minute climb here and there. I went from OG Ripley-no hand pain- V4 Ripley- hand pain in less than 30 minutes- to Ripley LS no hand pain.
200ft elevation change is big here.
I'm probably not normal though I have to mind also that I don't do any epic riding. My rides typically are short and explosive. Usually I go for a couple of intense fifteen minute laps (with rests in between) or I do really low speed tech practice. But yeah on those longer rides I also stand for 30-40 minutes and it still feels fine. It's been a while since I've ridden a marathon so I'm not sure how long I keep standing riding one of those but then again I'm trying to avoid really long rides anyway. First simply because as a working dad I more often have time for short blasts but less for a full day away. But I just turned fourty last week and want to avoid becoming a diesel doing too much endurance riding.
One note on the midfoot position though. My previous hardtail was a DMR Switchback (that is Trailstar geometry but just a bit lighter) and with my 6ft I could just handle the 16" (seattube) model that had something like 375mm reach. I wanted my toptube as low as possible and could just handle that short bike. That is, with my ball of the foot over the axle. When I shifted my feet forwards I effectively stretched the rear center and shortened the front. I've had more sketchy situations, bad crashes and injuries since. Luckily frame design has progressed since and I now have an even lower frame but with a shorter rear center (420mm back to 415mm) and a longer front (don't know about front center but head tube went up from 115mm to 150mm, head angle down from 69 to 63deg and reach from 375mm up to 460mm). All is good now. But definitely something to keep in mind when shifting your feet forwards. It effectively puts more weight over the front and less over the rear wheel.
TL;DR: Compared to concave platforms with 5.10 Impact with the ball of the foot over the axle, the Catalyst pedals with 5.10 Freeriders with the midfoot over the axle give you comparable ultimate grip but with a smoother and more controllable spectrum from zero to full grip. And the bigger platform definitely makes it more comfortable to stomp (pedal, pump and jump) on them. Shifting your feet forwards on the pedals to get the most out of these pedals does effectively change your weight balance over the wheels which is obviously most dramatic on a short bike.
At full extension, a steep post angle is great for climbing, but makes distance riding over flat or rolling terrain unnecessarily aggressive and uncomfortable.
There is a reason road bikes, and traditional mountain bikes, have had the 73° angle for so long. It’s comfortable, and in distance riding, comfort = less fatigue = faster.
Most riders do not live in straight up and down terrain, (where the only time you really need to pedal is cranking up hills).
Everyone saying that road and XC angles are 73° because they are ‘conservative’ and ‘the industry is afraid of change’ is wrong. If bike builders thought a steep post would be faster for a general purpose bike, they would exploit that. Pedaling dynamics are a science, and we know what works in terms of body positioning over top of the pedals.
Ever seen a time trial bike? Seat angles are steep as fuuuuck. Very aggressive, very aero, and very fast... For a brief amount of time. This is not a new idea.
https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/11/Canyon-Speedmax-tt-CF-SLX.jpg
Steep angles have their place, and my next mountain bike will take advantage of that. Just don’t be surprised that a significant part of the MTB market probably won’t be adopting that geometry, and it’s for a pretty legitimate reason.
You cannot produce as much power on a bike with a steep seat angle and an upright position. Your hip angle is too open and you can’t counter the leg force as easily by pulling back on the bars. There’s a reason pro XC racers are still using bikes without overly steep seat tube angles.
I believe TT uses same geo for spinning efficiency. Road bike geo allows/encourages more climbing/power/cranking out of the saddle which is not the body position one is in on a TT/Tri bike, but it’s ok because that road riding style is not how a Tri/TT rider rides.
The TT position is effectively a forward rotated road position tweaked for aerodynamics.
There are certain leg positions that recruit different muscle groups at differing levels of sustainability, and force capacity. If it was solely for aero, TT bikes would look different. It’s optimization of all factors.
Good point about hip angle... A much better articulation of the point I was trying to make- steep seat post angles (with hips forward) are not being ideal for long distance flat riding on an other wise upright MTB.
The pedals, Superstar Nanos, were already quite nice, that part was already being figured out back then. I hated the shoes, those Fivetens were this humongous hot things which would soak water by the gallon and hold it for a week.
But the worse was that, in order to have minimal clearance to move around a bit with and extended seatpost, you have to ride almost on tiptoes. You'll still see plenty of XC guys doing that, but so much for"drop your heels". Awful feel that is on flats, zero stability and traction, anytime the bike moves under you you lost your pedals.
Dropper post is a separate issue. We could have steep STA without droppers. People would just be doing what I was doing up to 2010 and lowered their posts by hand when needed.
if steep STAs only bring positives, somebody needs to tell Nino Schurter that the 73.8* STA on his Scott Spark is costing him dearly.
in reality, the farther you roll the STA forward, the more you roll the seated pressure forward off the sit bones and on to the center of the perineum, causing discomfort for extended in the saddle pedaling.
of course saddle position impacts comfort.
at 0*, your sit bones are lower than your perineum.
at 90* your perineum is lower than your sit bones.
you can tilt the saddle to compensate for this, but the more you drop the nose of the saddle, the increase pressure you will need with your hands to keep you from sliding forward in the saddle....you end up "wedging" yourself in place.
out of all of these variables in the puzzle, there is one constant: the vector of the acceleration due to gravity is through the center of the earth.
if seat tube angle is THE answer, then why are are only trail and AM bikes pursuing steep seat tube angles? XC races and road races are won on the climbs....the point is that it is not the THE answer, Only trail and AM bikes are pursuing longer reaches. as reach increases, TT grows proportionally. try climbing on a bike that has a TT that is 30mm too long. fix the TT length by steepening the STA, the bike returns to normal feeling, and the frame builder now has some new geo figure that they solved so they can sell you something.
fair enough. poor choice of words. Having owned a Pole Stamina 180 with 510mm of reach and 2020 Spesh Enduro with 487mm of reach, I can tell you that feeling between the two is negligible when out of the saddle. So, yeah, I went backwards, but not because I thought one was too long. What I discovered is that it didn't matter. That said, I aint going back to a 460mm reach haha.
i appreciate the effort in being condescending. i'd dignify it, but my ego is no match for yours.
1) i had no idea how many definitions there were for "tilt" as it applies to the saddle. you did, in fact, prove that I had an understanding (albeit weaker than yours) of saddle tilt, when you acknowledged "there is a sacrifice on the flats," which is precisely the wedging effect of which i spoke.
2) show me an XC bike with drop bars, and i will show you an XC racer that depends on aero advantages.
3) using a BB to saddle length of 30" and a seat tube angle of 74*, the vertical height of saddle over the BB is 28.4". Steeping the seat tube angle to 77* brings the height to 29.2" or a difference of 0.6" which will matter exactly none when speed slow as climbing begins. XC racers are won on the way up hill, and often times, they get out of the saddle, further increasing their silhouette.
4) enduro is a race format, not a type of bike. bikes designed for riding faster on the downs are getting longer for more stability. a bike is composed of a front triangle and a rear triangle. if you increase the front triangle length you HAVE to increase the seat tube angle, thereby restoring ETT, so that you can pedal it up hill. it is a by product of the pursuit of stability desired while pointed downhill. you could make seat tubes steeper on any bike, but then the ETT gets shorter and you have a cramped in the saddle position.
5) Below is the list of bikes I have owned in the past 4 years, w/ STAs ranging from 73* to 78.6*. What I have found is that as long as I had the bar height to saddle position dialed, then the STA difference was negligible. None of them gets me to the top any different than the other. No I don't ride as much as you, only 159 miles in October. No I don't climb as much as you, only 17,486 feet in October. No, my rides aren't as steep as yours, they only require the 42 and 50t Eagle rings on sustained sections.
Yeti SB6 (73* STA)
Evil Wreckoning (74.8* STA)
Evil Following (74.3* STA)
Evil Offering (77* STA)
2017 Spesh Enduro (76* STA)
2020 Spesh Enduro (76* STA)
Pole Stamina 140 (78.6* STA)
Pole Stamina (78.3* STA)
speaking of bikes, i am off to enjoy some climbing on the one I find most pleasurable to get to the top, which has the second slackest seat tube: the Following. Enjoy.
haha. no harm no foul. love a good debate myself. also love me some galbraith, chuck and s&t (speaking of brutal climbs, did somebody say e bike?)...i make an annual pilgrimage to BC and occasionally get some B'ham time when i can pry myself away from Squamish and Whistler.
i actually think we are probably in violent agreement....STA is A thing, but by itself it is not THE thing. i tend to get a bit sensitive when i feel like things are marketing ploys, haha. cheers
I´we been looking at new enduro bikes like Privateers 161, but that extremely steep seat post angle been scaring me. I have never reflected regarding seat angle and therefore were ignorant. Is my concern legit, or are that steep angle the way to go? Aren't there any downsides with a 80 degree seat post angle?
And that article! Written by the same person who wrote the problem with steeper seat angles was that the saddle, once dropped, wouldn’t be as far forward as with a slacker angle. I will let the author discuss with Pythagoras and Thales about that. He might have meant "the relative move forward"? But then so what? In the end the saddle is effectively more forward once dropped, therefore it’s another non problem created by the bike industry.
Of course it goes way beyond the bike industry, conservatism is predominant among riders who think 300g shaving on a frame is important on your performance. How much more difficult is it to ride uphill with your jacket in your backpack compared to without ? No difference.
The 3 cm longer wheelbase will make the bike more clumsy on hairpin turns. When the wheelbase is 120cm, it’s like 2.5% more. Massive difference ?? No.
The mtb geometry is finally strongly departing from the road bikes. It took a while! But now it’s getting quick and I assume it will stabilize in about 5-6 years. Unless something I didn’t see coming shows up. Keep your minds open !
1. I needed some time to get used to it
2. I love it for going uphill
3. I feel very planted to the saddle, so I do use the dropper more often (as RC wrote)
4. I need the bars to be quite high for being comfortable on longer rides (that is not a bad thing for going down hill)
5. Since my rides usually contain quite much riding along without going up or down ( ), I ended up, pushing the saddle all the way back on its rails
6, for my next frame (unless, I live in the Mountains until then) I would go back to 77°
Thoughts?
Richard Cunningham: “Hold my beer...”
I'd find this claim more credible if a single frame designer/engineer was referenced. C'mon pinkbike, pick up the phone and call a few bike companies!
Note in the last picture the guy is high-posting with a dropper!!!
It is obvious that if you can drop the seat post, as all can do in a blink now, you can move the seat more forward and maybe gain a bit of control going up hill, and maybe efficiency. But there are limits related to individuals' body geometry, and a forward geometry might work up-hill but might not work too well anywhere else where efficient pedaling is required. There are flats and moderate inclines out there!
And, just as a side comments: lost in the never ending Pinkbike search for "trends" (translated: you must buy a new bike), is the fact that all it would take to obtain the same slightly forward geometry are saddles with longer rails and/or step forward drop posts (like the rigid version used for road bikes).
German magazines always told us that longer bikes are not turnable .
It definitely needed small companies like Nicolai and Pole to change that. It had nothing to do with dropper posts. Back then you dropped your saddle by hand as far as possible.
Not like if the seat was up and slack you ever use the space in front of it - that shot of richie on his 2012 "non" dropper Liteville looks to me like he would deal with things better if the seat angle was 79 instead of 72....
I find steep seat posts mean it is harder to pedal out of the saddle - saddle is always in the way unless I lower it but if I leave the seat up I can get behind it better on the few smaller features I have tried.
I do enjoy biking more with a dropper - seat angle slack or steep.
Maybe not a big deal if your riding consists of long, boring climbs followed by sustained descents, but for rolling terrain it gets annoying to drop/raise your saddle every few seconds.
/s
then progress was artificially slowed down as it always is, for sales, but eventually, we got them.. so the frame makers changed the angle.
Hell some frame makers still make new bikes with worse seat tube angle right now (hi Lapierre?) while they don't have to, for cost/marketing reasons
all that to say if they all decided to make this happen quick and money was not a thing, we'd have this a long time ago
Bike sure don't suck anymore....
But how much of MTB design not evolving past the old school 73-is degree STA until the recent handful of years, had to do with being stuck in the old KOPS (knee over pedal spindle) philosophy from road bike design?
I haven't done this setup method in decades, so also wondering how much further the knee is forward of the pedal spindle with a 77 degree STA (average 5'-10" male with 33" inseam). Anyone?
www.sheldonbrown.com/kops.html
How much, and for how long was MTB evolution held back by this philosophy?
We are NOT riding in tri positions because we are far more upright. Hip angle is far more open on these steep STA mtbs.
I definitely agree with your take on the old vs new Hightower. It doesn’t even have a radically steep STA or long reach but it is tiring on rolling terrain but handles steep ups and downs like a champ. I’m still considering getting one but I’d overfork it to 160mm to lay back the seated position a touch.
When I say tri position I am referring to the position of the saddle relative to the bb.
These trends always swing too far before reversing themselves. Not saying we are there yet but does anyone remember when we cut our bars down to get through trees? Now a 10 year old rides 820 mm wide bars.
You best go tell Nino as he is a climbing weapon and has it wrong with his seat angle not being steep enough
Trek too with their new Supercaliber cross-country race bike.
haha
Lastly, as already stated by many, we had QR seatpost collars and DID use them frequently. It may sound awkward, but this used to be the norm. Nobody complained about having to take a rest before a descent, everybody just had to.
30 years ago I was into motocross, and when I see the nowadays MTBs compared to the first ones, I`m just thinking: shit: all this for that? Any DH bike and even enduro bikes now look pretty much like a motocross with pedals! Slack HA?... look at 90`s MX. Nowadays MTBs are very similar to MXs... with steeper and steeper SA to pedal them
Using some basic gionometry, if I assume 90cm inseam, 70cm from bracket to saddle, 3 degrees difference between 74 and 77 angle, this translates to the saddle moving forward 3.66cm. But the difference in height really is minimal, to my calculation one 1 mm, which sounds so little they I question my calculation, but otherwise no difference in absolute height.
STA and ETT come into play in defining how much space is available in front of or behind the saddle for “getting behind the saddle” whether raised or lowered. If the STA angle is increased without lengthening reach then the cockpit becomes more cramped, possibly leading to reduced steering room near knees. If you increase reach you upset good for aft weight distribution.
The Pole Bikes have longish chainstays, which is a huge contributor to keeping bike from losing front wheel traction up or downhill; more so than extreme seat tube angles. Long chainstays also make more room for the seat to go lower without buzzing saddle, which with seat tube depth allows more room to move the bike
If someone wanted a bike with a relatively compact front center (to maintain front wheel grip, keep constraint of wheelbase and make front end lifting easier) then a steep seat tube angle would be troublesome.
to have steep seat tube, you need long reach. If you have slack headtube, you have long front center. If you have long front center you need to lean on handlebars, WHICH RAISES COG DRASTICALLY AND DECREASES STABILITY...Or you can just lengthen chainstay; which allows reduced saddle height, better aerodynamics, better weight distribution , better power.
On the fly fork travel reduction increases STA, A-C, reach, and lowers COG; all of which drastically improve climbing. Talas and Dual Air are being killed off by the manufactures and media, which blows to not even have this great option especially considering theres 50 shades of the same thing on offer.
I had a Talas (actually still do but is only collecting dust), so I'm not writing from a theoretical point of view only.
do i detect a megadeth reference....?
they never failed, easy to rebuild and I still have 3 on old bikes.
Who here remember the Hite-Rite from the 80s?
thats was the first one.
It also seems like an attempt to take credit away from the progressive manufacturers who pioneered the geometry which is slowly trickling down to the mainstream companies.
Thank you #Nicolai #GEOMETRON #Geolution #MojoRising #PoleBicycles
Steeper STA is in response to longer reach.
Longer reach is in response to slacker HTA.
Slacker STA made it “harder” to get behind the seat, you’d think that bit of geometry would be obvious to writer.
Droppers are convenient for folks who ride up and down, but for the majority of riders it’s not all that necessary, to them it’s just a convenient way to rest their feet when they come to a stop .