Privateer Bikes' 161 Prototype is an Aluminium Full Suss Aimed at Racers - Eurobike 2019

 It nearly ticks all my boxes, except the 29 one.

 Just 3 questions;
1) Does the price includes the shock?
2) When is it available?
3) Warranty time/period?

Probably my next bike

 Wow now thats a nice bike and yes it ticks all the boxes for me too...even the looks, its great, love it

 @TDMAN: there's a nice article over on MBR where they specify some more.
According to that the price includes a shock and it should be available "early 2020".
Warranty I don't know but he says something about being able to return the bike and get a refund if you don't like it after 45 days.

 @TDMAN: Hey, thanks for the questions.
1. Yes, that price will include the RockShox SuperDeluxe Ultimate.
2. We're aiming for Spring 2020, with full launch info and preorders in October/November.
3. We haven't worked out all the finer details yet, but as riders ourselves you can be assured we'll look after you should the worst happen. Just like with @huntbikewheels we'll offer a 60 day ride and return policy, as we know you can't get a true feel for something online.

 @pperini: Hey, thanks! We've been working hard behind the scenes on this, so it really means a lot.

 @PrivateerBikes: thank you!

 @PrivateerBikes: available to North America ??

 @PrivateerBikes: Looks good, what size is pictured?

 @PrivateerBikes:
What’s the suspension curve like and compatibility for coil shocks?

 @PrivateerBikes: I’d love to know the starting and ending leverage rate on this thing

 @privateerbikes & @cheetamike: USA availability?

 @PrivateerBikes: awesome looking bike, will have dates and prices for full bikes when you do the info launch later this year or will it just be for framesets at the moment?

 @TDMAN: this just jumped to the top of my list with the slayer

 @zoobab2: think out of that one box

 @Dnik , @cheetamike , and all... I was about to ask the same, but @PrivateerBikes answered below; they're SHIPPING WORLDWIDE! WOOT!

 @PrivateerBikes AWESOME! Between wheels and bikes, looks Well built, attention to detail durability and the common man/racer...very sensible pricing comparatively speaking... it even looks amazing! I can't get enough. I love this!

Also, P.S.
Any idea of complete pricing? Or, when will that/more be announced?

 Finally a bike with an STA that doesn't put us long legged people out over the rear axle when the seat is up

 Looks fab. Well done!

 @Hyakian: Thanks! Pictured is the medium.

@Lfcrik / @kleinblake - Hey, the frame is designed with coil compatibly in mind, we'll have the all the suspension graphs on the website when we launch it next month.

@Kickmehard Thanks for the questions, right now we're focusing on the frame but will aim to have full builds ready late next year so haven't got any confirmed details yet. When we do, we'll be sure to let everyone know.

@mtbikeaddict Thanks! That really does mean a lot to us. We should have more info on full builds later next year.

 @chize: but is 80 degree really required to improve that? aren't the proportional chainstays and longer WB helping to avoid it also?

 @telephunke: No. I mean longer chainstays yes, but then you still have the feeling like you're pedalling in front of you, not under you. Pedalling with the BB under you is a goooooood feeling, trust me.

Plus the thing is with the virtual and actual seat tube angles, when you raise the seat 20 cm over the stack (and the point of virtual angle measurement), the seat height actual angle becomes slacker. So yeah, it is needed for tall people. For me, at 190 cm height and 91 cm inseam and ~81 cm seat height over the BB, the actual seat height angle on this bike would be 79,2°.

It's not a big change, but you also have to consider that the higher you go, the further back you also go when you have a tall seat, even with a steep seat tube angle. Well, the slacker, the further kind of thing.

 @zyoungson Hey, thanks! We always put function ahead of form, but we're pretty pleased how it looks too. Everyone loves looking at bikes, but riding them is way more fun.

The guys over at RAAW make a sweet bike, so taking that as a big compliment.

 @PrivateerBikes: cheers! It's nice to see more companies and riders focus on durability and sendability over theoretical numbers! Let's keep this going!

 @RAAWMountainBikes @PrivateerBikes Both of you have Great Frames! lol

 @kes2903 Thanks!
Judging by the feedback so far it looks like we will have to do a raw version

 @gabrieltorne Thanks! Unfortunately you wouldn't be able to run 27.5" wheels on the 161, unless you went for the smallest frame which is still being worked on. If you did it would lower the bottom bracket too much and you'd strike the pedals often.

 Thanks @excavator666! We've been working hard on it, so means a lot to us

 @PrivateerBikes: another Ali Beckett bike as well. Great to see!

 Yes, that would be ideal!

 I think transition does this with frame/fork/shock combos, they get it. Not everyone wants to buy a full build only to swap out most of the components, then you may not even be left with the fork/shock you are after

 @zyoungson: exactly

The price difference on a fork and shock at OEM Vs Aftermarket prices is astounding. The same could be said for any part I guess, but usually when I build a new bike I am particular about those parts. Wheels I can build according to what's on offer at the time... And then throw on a spank cockpit and xt drivetrain.

If the frame, fork and shock was sold at about £1800, you could build a complete at £3000 ish, in which case YT and Canyon would not be on my list.

 Hey @jaame, thanks!

We have been looking into the option of a rolling chassis, using the parts you suggested. We haven't nailed down any specs yet, but keep an eye out.

Thanks for the feedback too, it really appreciated.

 @PrivateerBikes: keep doing what you're doing. It looks like a solid bike with bang up to date geometry and fantastic looks. Carbon has had its day as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't get another. Not because there is anything wrong with them, just that they don't offer anything a good alloy bike doesn't offer but they cost quite a bit more.

Stout alloy bike, raw finish, top end fork. That's just the ticket.

Cheers.

 Looks like the size 1 will be 27.5, just no geo numbers yet ... if its around 450mm, it goes on my list

 @craigyboy Thanks for all your feedback, we do read it all and gives us plenty to think about.

We are working on a smaller frame, which would have proportionally smaller reach/chainstays, although most likely designed around 27.5". However this is not set in stone just yet and still looking at all possibilities.

 Hey @aireeek, thanks! Really appreciate the kind words.
- Yep! We'll be shipping worldwide
- I haven't the depth to hand, but the info will be included when we launch the full website next month.

 Hey @zyoungson, thanks for the kind words and questions.

We have been working with RockShox, however we are looking at all possibilities right now.

I haven't got the full info to hand, but full details will be on the website when we launch it next month

 Hey @Speeder01, the team over at Transition make some sweet bikes, thanks for the kind words!

 @PrivateerBikes: nice work guys. All business, no BS. Well priced too.

 If it really weighs 30.2lbs as equipped, it's not too much like a Sentinel.

 look here
singletrackworld.com/2019/07/exclusive-sneak-peek-prototype-fs-enduro-bike-from-privateer-bikes

 Setback seatposts are poised for a comeback.

 It's a point where frames would be okay yeah. Everybody needs to get there and then we can have a pause and reevaluate things. But staph with sub 70 degree seat tubes, those need to die.

 Finally 80! As for the setback offseted posts, they will be used frontside back for frames that still have slack seat angles.

 @EnduroManiac: The cockpits will be way too short then. We've been over this many times.

 @Primoz: Again it's a matter of personal preference and morphology.

 For once we, taller people, can have a good fit when seat in full extension!! I've try some 29er demos and at only 6'1'' (long legs I guess), I finish with a probably 70° instead of their claimed 76°... so yeah, really happy to see steep STA!! Less to see those ultra long wheelbase... Well I'll think about it as I love everything else about this frame!

 @Timo82:
You want a steep seat angle, check!
You want a comfortable cockpit length, check!
You want a reasonably slack head tube angle, check!

Geometrically, there is no way to make a bike with these characteristics a short wheelbase one.
But yes, I am also a little scared to try a bike with a 1250mm wheelbase, even though I will probably soon end up on one.

 @EnduroManiac: No it's not. I mean, unless you prefer your knees hitting the handlebars. To be honest i don't. And morphology probably doesn't as well.

 @s-master: went from a 1224 mm 2015 Reign L to the 1292 mm Bird AM9 and it's simply insane. A friend of mine has the L version and went for it from a L V4.2 Meta AM. Same story.

It's a bus only by looks, it is slightly cumbersome in tight switchbacks and berms, but otherwise it's a rocketship.

 @Timo82: If you're at full seatpost extension, why wouldn't you size up? At 6'1" you're generally between brand's L and XL, so with long legs go XL.

 Notice their prototype has the seat slammed back on the rails. When your wheelbase is longer than a Pole but your top tube is shorter than a Pole you gotta wonder... Still, if you can try it and send it back. If the shipping doesn't cost a fortune to make that happen it's worth a try. The great thing about steep STA's is that it's an easy fix to run a setback dropper. Still, almost seems like they need an XXL. (same thought about that La Sal Peak)

 @jollyXroger: Don't call it a comeback.... been here for years... rockin meh peers, drinken their beers... er, well it goes something like that...

 @stiingya: you made me think. The largest bike is actually very similar to the large Stamina 180 (except the seat tube length), but still shorter in the wheelbase department. Then there's the XL Stamina as well.

And like I said, the pole could have a longer top tube as well, so... Size 6 privateer is needed!

 @Primoz: Yes it is. Obviously you prefer to be stretched out pedalling and cramped riding. I prefer to be relaxed either way and there's way enough clearance for my knees. If you don't like thew new est geo trends stick to the old ones, I don't care really. I'm happy there's finally something close to what I would like.
In that very case I find the chainstays a little too long, and the BB drop slightly too pronounced but acceptable. Otherwise this Pole Stamina....

 @EnduroManiac: please read my posts. Or as the saying goes (for the obviously part), assumption is the mother of all f*ckups. Where in the hell have I said that bikes are now too long? Where have I said that I feel cramped or stretched out?

Let's try again. I'm riding a 680 mm XL top tube bike with a very comfortable position seated. Three other people have commented the exact same thing sitting on it. I tried a 2015 giant reign in XL with 665 mm of top tube, but a 30 mm longer stem and a much slacker seat tube. THAT felt stretched out. I rode an L reign from the same year at 640 mm top tube (and a 20 mm shorter stem) and the cockpit was reasonable. The seat over the rear, which was annoying, but otherwise reasonable.

The reach numbers for all three bikes are 522 (current Bird), 480 (XL reign) and 458 (L reign) mm. I feel much better on the insane reach bike and, here's the kicker, there's hardly any difference in cockpit length between the L reign and my current XL. Fun, huh? And I'm not stretched out pedalling and I'm certainly not cramped going down on my current bike. And I'd really like to try a steeper seat tube angle with a longer reach at the same cockpit length.
The bike I have is amazing going down and I am completely relaxed (due to the seat tube angle) going up steep climbs. And the cockpit length is perfect.

I hope its clear now. And if you compare the privateer geo numbers, I think (i hope) you'll be able to see why I'm saying its too short. Size 4 is actually closer to a large (with an old school seat tube length) than an XL.

 @Primoz: I guess if 3 people had the same issue than you then it's really worth freezing the geometries to your liking...
I re-iterate: I do not care too much about the "cockpit length" when seated as long as the sa is steep enough (within a certain range obviously as I said don't wanna be fully stretched out). Why? Because for me (again, morphologies are different which you seem to want to ignore) having a closed angle at my hip is very uncomfortable. On top of that, the interest of a steep seat angle is that your rearward weight bias ain't so big on steeper climbs eg your suspension won't sag too much. This rearward bias also implies little weight on your front wheel which will start wandering if not lifting as soon as you encounter a tiny root or step. Obviously you can move your weight forward in those instances, and that can be nicely uncomfortable.

Your explanations are clear. But it does not mean this is an absolute truth and that's what you don't understand. We are all different, ride in different positions and ride different terrain so non-uniformity of geometries is great, we finally all have something to buy

 @EnduroManiac: Can we all just agree that:
a) @privateerbikes needs to add Size 5 to their line up
AND
b) Forbidden add size XXL Druid to theirs?

Let the customer sweat over the decision should they go for a "cramped" but "playful" or a "roomy" but "cumbersome".

 @jollyXroger: That would be a good step, but i fear that the seat tube lengths would be too long then (since people would effecively 'size up' again given their height).

It kind of feels ompanies are hitting some aspects of the geometry spot on (seat tube angle, actual value), then go conservative for fear 'OH MY GOD, IT'S A BUS' comments when equiping the bike with the reach and resulting wheelbase that it needs to actually function for the size of person that should ride it. They just rotate the seat tube forwards and call it a day, creating too short bikes or bikes that have seat tubes too long (which has been said in reviews is 'finally a thing of the past')...

 @EnduroManiac: it doesn't seem that it's clear. You want a steep seat tube angle and imply i don't want it. I have said only that i want a steeper angle than i currently have (76 virtual, 71 actual). I want to try an 80 degree seat tube angle. I hate slack angles exactly because it closes the hip, throws you over the rear and forces you to move forwards (shortening the cockpit even more!). You're saying that 4 people riding my 'long' bike being comfortable is an issue. How can that be clear?

All the replies to my comments you are making seem to imply that i want old slack seat tube bikes. When it's in fact the opposite. I want a Stamina, but i want a Stamina in XL with an even longer reach to get a long enough cockpit. I want a Druid or a Privateer, but same story again. I want my Bird but with a steeper seat tube angle and a longer reach. If all of that means a longer wheelbase, so be it. I want to slog up steep climbs in comfort, not bent over the handlebar. And i don't want my knees in the handlebar. And at 520 mm of reach, i'm not stretched out going down.

And i'm well aware what a slack vs. steep seat tube angle means for going up. That is why i hate slack angles. And i also know that it is not an issue for riders not needing an XL bike (since they get the actual seat height angle value close to the virtual one, since their seat heights are close to stack heights). And i suspect riders of S bikes might want steeper actual seat tube angles as well in order to slacken the actual seat height angle, when the seat is below the stack angle. And so on.

As for absolute truth, i was on a bike with a slack angle and a short reach. I rode bikes with a too long top tube and short reach and i know what it's like to be stretched out. I've now gone to a reasonably steep seat tube angle with a long reach and i'm loving it. And i know this is a niche case for very tall (XL) riders. While not the 1+1=2 truth, it's completely logical and i am yet to be convinced i am wrong. After all, my experiences have only confirmed what i figured out before owning my current bike.

As for different people, you are right. But people also buy wrong bikes because of what it says on them. And i'll say we still don't have something to buy because there is still not one single bike without compromises. All the steep seat tube angle bikes out there in XL are too short (Privateer, Raaw Madonna, Pole Stamina), while the long enough bikes have the seat tube angle a bit too slack still.

 @Primoz: But why do you want a slack SA? Just kidding.

 @s-master: 1250mm lol. Come join the >1300mm side of the force

 @SintraFreeride: to be honest (we're in Saalbach right now), tight 180deg bike park berms don't do long bikes justice, it's a bit too cumbersome. But that's the only issue, everything else is awesome.

 @Primoz: Get yourself a XXL Nicolai G1 one then! I have a 520mm reach pole with 77º SA and recently tried an XL 535mm reach G1 with 79º SA and it felt even better!

 @Primoz: Really? I haven't had any problems with them on my "bus" bike with 1340mm wheelbase. I just slide the back end in.

 @SintraFreeride: with the whole berm taking about 3 or 4 meters of width on ground when I throw myself into one, I feel the front wheel trying to brake me a bit. I think given the position of the bike in the berm the "approach angle" on the front wheel is a bit too steep since it's so long. A shorter bike has a more relaxed approach angle.

I hope it's clear what I'm trying to say, drawing it out would probably be better.

 @Primoz: I have ridden the same size berms on steep and flat terrain and find that if you lead the bike over enough and carry speed it works just fine. If it is steep slow terrain you just need to slide the back end around. I will have to do some videos at some point.

 @SintraFreeride: It's not steep. I am talking about pumptrack-like berms, high and steep and very closed off. I day later i also felt the front wheel trying to fold under me when steering into the berms. And i had problems being faster from people in said berms when i was MUCH faster on more open sections of the trail.

FWIW, i'll take that in tight berms to get the overall performance i get. Because that is insane. But i'm not going to be fanboyish when there clearly are negatives with such long bikes. Miner ones if you ask me and considering my riding style, but negatives nevertheless.

 @Primoz: I haven't found any negatives with these "longer" bikes except that it makes manualing harder. The bike climbs and descends better and so long as you lean the bike and place the bike well it can fit just about any where. Plus I prefer riding off the center of the bike.

 @SintraFreeride: don't get me wrong, it took me over half a year to find a negative (besides manualing) in a place I don't really like (tight berms) with all other experiences nothing but awesome. And I would have to try it out with a shorter bike, maybe the effect there would be the same and its just me that's the problem. But physics wise it makes sense it's a negative of a a longer bike.

 @SintraFreeride: exactly how tall are you?

 @Uchwmdr: I am 180cm with 0 ape index. Have a 520mm reach bike with 20mm stem and my next bike will have 535mm also with 20mm stem.

 @EnduroManiac: That doesn't make any sense, If they make a bigger size how would you be, "cramped out riding"...? It would be "bigger". longer reach, longer wheel base. A "bigger size". I aint asking to be stretched out, I'm asking to have a standard/normal XL EFTT length of at least 650 if not 660/etc.

 @stiingya: I have never said such a thing. Please read again.
I don’t really care about EFTT as long as it’s acceptable. What I don’t understand is when we focus only on "enlarging " a frame by slackening the sa. In that case indeed you end up rather stretched out seated, with a miserable hip angle (an issue for an old guy like me!) and the consequence is you’re still cramped when standing as the reach has not been adjusted. This is road bike reasoning but mountain biking is a different sport.

 @EnduroManiac: i agree. I used to have low back pain at 17 on some bikes that had slack sa with too long top tubes. What ive noticed after getting a steeper sa with a bit shorter top tube was the rather upright position that was very comfy

 @SintraFreeride: woah.
Im 190 and my old bike had 442 reach, 50stem and 1197 wb.

 @Uchwmdr: Yeah, I'm 190, on 680 mm ETT, 520 mm reach and 40 mm stem length and I' thinking it might make sense to try something a bit shorter...

 @EnduroManiac: Your words = "Obviously you prefer to be stretched out pedalling and cramped riding." That doesn't make sense when we're asking for a larger size bike?

I"m not saying to slacken the size 4 to make a longer TT. I'm saying to make a size 5, keep the 80* STA, but extend it so I still have at least a 650 EFTT. (and no I don't want to use a longer stem)

In most cases steeper STA's are benefiting taller riders. But in this case they aren't making an XL bike. (which is probably why they call it a size 4?)

A 650 EFTT for an XL isn't road bike reasoning.

 @stiingya: I don’t know what you don’t understand. It’s the very case described in my last post: long bikes through long too tubes, and long top tubes through slack seat angle. Got it now?

 @stiingya: What's more, the steeper the seat tube angle (for taller riders), the LONGER the ETT has to be. SInce you're not throwing the seat way behind the end of the ETT measuring point, but closer to over it. And you need to keep your cockpit distance, not the ETT distance from a slacker bike.

BTW, I think you two are making a similar point but in 'different languages'

 @EnduroManiac: I get that, I am saying that myself.

What I don't get is that after Primoz said they need a "size 6", you said... "Obviously you prefer to be stretched out pedalling and cramped riding." and I said that doesn't make any sense because it would be a larger bike.

Then you commented that you never said that, but I'm copying and pasting what you said? Maybe you were commenting on something he said earlier?? IDK It's all good... just forum discussion...

In the end, frame fit and Geo is always gonna be a personal thing with different riders preferring different fits. I guess if a person spent most of their pedaling time standing up than a 630 EFTT might be OK for a tall rider?? (I'm ~190cm) For me 85-95% of climbing is sit and spin, even for hard efforts where you might slightly raise up or get your nose on the bar, etc. I only stand and peddle for very short steeps where you don't have time to shift or at the very last part of a climb when your gassed out or loosing traction, etc. And I'd say at least 60-70% of traversing is sitting with lots of up and down. I don't want to be stretched out like a road bike either. But if a bike is cramped then it doesn't work when I'm sitting and riding. So for me a 630 EFTT is too short!

 @Primoz: exactly, at least that's how it seems to me. If you take an XL bike and throw an 80 degree STA on it and "don't change anything else" you just turned it into a medium bike.

I bet half of the online arguments are from language differences!! LOL

 I actually pedal standing up only on very technical traverses (where i've become cumbersome since i've been using dropper posts, my XC riding skills with the seat raised are gone...) or to give some pressure relief after sitting on my ass slogging away for 1+ hour.

There is movement and short butt raises on technical climbs, but it's to prepare for a pressure relief of the rear axle to get over a rock or a root. Wouldn't really call it pedalling standing up.

In general pedalling standing up causes you to lose too much grip to be effective on a MTB.

 @tomb-2 Eagle eyed We've been loving Rimpacts

 @PrivateerBikes:

When will the 140 trailbike hit the market and is it 29, 27,5 or a tweener?

 Hey @just6979, thanks for pointing that out. We worked really hard to ensure every rider gets a great experience and felt keeping things proportional is key.

Sizing is a tricky one and you're right, the tradition methods tend to confuse as one companies medium is another's large. We've labeled 1,2,3 & 4 at the moment whilst the label may change on release, the idea will remain to choose based on the geo figures rather than a size.

 @PrivateerBikes: I get that some people like that - but I'm a tall guy who likes the feel of snappy/playful rear chainstays - would it be possible to get a size 4 and run the size 2 stays?

 Do the different length chainstays also result in different suspension characteristics (antisquat values appropriate for taller riders with taller CoGs for example)?

 I agree some of this is great, but i think there's still a problem here, highlighted by polar views in comments about the STA (and more generally about STAs), and cockpit length etc

The STA probably needs to vary with frame size as well, along with chainstays and wheelbase, or we just end up with a bike that fits some body proportions and not others, regardless of size.

I'd be basically eating my stem and smashing my knees on the bar when seated on this bike, for the size with the right stack and reach for me. Sure it'll descend great, but won't do anything else very well.

a steep STA combined with inability to get the dropper low enough also puts the saddle in a super awkward position when descending, in my experience.

 @telephunke: I've been thinking this as well, thinking that a slacker angle might be better for smaller riders (or at least not as bad). Though you then have the problem of the wheel hitting the seat and all.

 @PrivateerBikes: So why say that the bike pictured is a medium? Is that a 2 or 3?

 Hey @Tmackstab, thanks!

Same here, so we'll only be changing things if we really need to. Colours may vary but we won't be following the traditional model structure.

 Hey @NorthernIron thanks! We're busy working on the 'trail' bike and those numbers have certainly come up once or twice

 @PrivateerBikes:
Can't wait

 Hyper’s mtb’s are only things of legend. Like the Abominable Snowman or Bigfoot. Some grainy pics available but never seen in the wild.

 @nyhc00: Yeah I wish to have one of theese

 Hey @Jommpe, yep! Compatible with coil.

 Agreed. My Bird Aeris AM9 is 522, 76 virtual and 71 degrees actual. The top tube is 680,this one is 5 cm shorter.

I was at the point of "I need this". Now I don't want it anymore.

So thanks for killing my dream! :-D

 Personal preference. I have a Rallon with 75 SA and 485mm reach. Feels ok.

 @Primoz: Surely Privateer won't thank me

 The bike in the picture shows this will be evident, 80 degree STA is going a little far for me.

@EnduroManiac - is that actual or effective STA, the Rallon looks nowhere near as extreme - I would imagine yours is around 5 degrees slacker in the real world.

 @EnduroManiac: Obviously the measurements depend on the frame size.
I am referring to at least the XLInstead I personally think that there are two important things for the geomentry of a frame:
1- downhill the rider must have a central position to be able to better manage his weight (which is what moves the bike) while continuing to load the front end.
2- according to the previous one must be very pedaled.
The answer to these two requests we see implemented in the latest geometric developments, or long-low-slack.
Obviously the third foundation is the suspension kinematics and here the attentive producer makes the difference.

 Two additional points to add here.

First: The frame designer is the same as for the Druid, Alistair Beckett. I had the exact same comment regarding length with the druid. The answers were 'size up' (my answer was 'where to when you're on XL') and 'can't get enough aero on the climbs?'. Same designer puts things into a bit of a perspective. Plus i think companies are afraid to go 'wild' on the reach since it's all reach reach reach these days, even though, i still maintain my point, reach is useless (case in point). And then you get a short top tube.

Second point, i said 5 centimeters. I must admit i have my seat slammed forwards on the Bird. With an 80° seat tube you can gain back 2 to 3 cm with a more relaxed (effectively similar) seat position length wise. Though you lose some length compared to the Bird with a steeper seat tube, so let's split the difference and say the Privateer is still ~3 cm shorter.

3 cm is not a small amount. As mentioned previously on the internets, it's a size and a half reach wise. And can cause people to bump knees into the handlebars.

So yes. This bike is too short.

As for you @EnduroManiac what is the top tube length of your Rallon? As another case in point how useless reach is.

 @Primoz: You decide if reach is useless, not my opinion as this determines my position when riding becomes interesting eg when pointing down. And that's why I'm not ready to go back to a big brand frame yet as they all are rather conservatives. I remember trying the Hightower with a long top tube only resulting from a short reach with a very slack seat angle. The bike handled well enough to be interesting but it simply felt way to short when standing on the pedals while being way too long when seating. This plus the strain on the poor long dropper post.

 @justanotherusername: I did not measure the angle but my previous bike had 72° REAL (straight seat tube, no offset compared to BB). And my Rallon feels significantly steeper. If not the actual value then we're probably very close to 75 anyways.

 @EnduroManiac: exactly! Reach and Stack are the first thing I look at, after that its seat angle making the TTL basically irrelevant. It'll be whatever it needs to be to attach the seat tube to the head tube, nothing more.

 @EnduroManiac:
How tall are you?
I am 183cm (6 feet) with relatively long legs (89cm inseam, 35 inch) and web calculator suggests XL size, the one you have. I fear, that would feel too big, but I have not way of testing it before ordering...

 @Primoz:
Why would you say reach is not important?
I understand your point regarding cockpit length being more important for comfortable pedaling and steep seat tube angle being important for comfortable climbing.
These two equate to long reach, of course. But, do you think that a reach itself can not be too long for downhill performance? That while standing up on an MTB, we are still far below the limit of reach making us too stretched?

 @s-master: I‘m 186 and not sure about inseam. I believe a little shorter than yours? Riding XL Rallon and would have gone XXL if available. But each his own.

 @EnduroManiac: reach is useless because a bike might seem long but in fact it won't be.

I'm not saying reach is useless because i want a short reach, i want an even longer reach. Give the Bird i mentioned above, but give me an actual 75° seat tube angle and 540 mm of reach. THe cockpit will be about the same as now but i will be even more upright when pedalling.

As for 'fun, pointing down' part, i maintain and will not be swayed that that is the only part that is relevant when looking at a geometry. If yes, buy a downhill or park bike. If you need to pedal the bike up the hill, then it must fit you when pedalling first and foremost, since that will expend most of your energy and most of the time riding your bike. It's a simple efficiency calculation.

If you say it doesn't matter if you spend more energy getting up, the more energy you save, the more you can spend going down.

Plus my bus of a bike only slightly handles 'badly' in very tight corners, overall it's much better to ride than my previous, too short and too small bike.

 @Tmackstab: it will be the emasurement that will define your cockpit. Don't know about you, but i would like my knees hitting my handlebar.

Make the seat tube steep and use the correct top tube and see where that puts you with reach.

Here's a bomb. Pole's Staminas are short (cockpit wise).

 @s-master: because, like i mentioned, you spend most of the time and energy pedalling.

Plus riding 520 mm of reach on an XL, going from ~460 mm on my previous bike, it only improved things. If anything the long reach allows me to cheat by being too far backwards on the bike and still keeping enough weight on the front. And the longer the reach, the more you can (and then also have to) move backwards and forwards on the bike.

All my points here are based on XL riders, just to be clear. It's probably a different story on S sized frames.

 @Primoz: I have Pole and yes it's short while seated pedalling, it's long as soon as I stand up. I fail to see how a slacker seattube will be beneficial for anyone with a post that has any significant travel. My 200mm 9point8 post on a bike with a 75 degree angle would put me over the rear axle and as much as a 540mm reach on that bike would be roomy when standing, it would be impossible to sit and pedal.

 @Tmackstab: If you're asking me about the slack seat tube angle, i fail to see where i seem as a supporter of slack seat tubes. At 71° actual and 75° virtual seat tube angle on my current bike i would go only and nothing else but steeper if i had the option.

 Everybody does this. Doesn't anyone use bikes when they do this kind of design? Or do they have hover stand up bikes or what?

 At least our weather is interesting. My biggest moan last year was that the dry spell went on too long and I got bored with riding in the same trail conditions every single day.

 It' s not called "The Mud Isle" for nothing

 having lived in Wales and BC I can confirm UK weather is worse, at least we have a summer over here. the thing that really tips the balance is the type of mud, UK mud sticks to your bike like shit to a blanket.

 @imho4ep: not necessarily. I live in North Scotland and generally it just rinses off. Clay mud in places further south does stick I’ll give you that. Generalising the whole of the UK though doesn’t work, the dirt is different all over the place.

 I spent a year in BC and it rained a hell of a lot more than I'm used to in the UK. It's been a very dry summer where I currently live (been building a house, so have noticed). But, I'm moving to Seattle soon, so we'll see...!

I think in general the weather is pretty similar, but Wales generally gets the worst weather in the UK, the hills there seem to do a good job of shielding England from the worst of the the Atlantic and Irish sea.