Transition's 2018 Lineup - First Look

 ... and make it expensive

Jokes aside they look like awesome bikes!

 Just keep making them awesome is all. Pretty soon I will have an airport hanger that will put Yay Leno to shame!

 @jaame: Have you ridden one? I haven't, but everyone that I've heard who has and/or owns one, loves them. That seems to be pretty good engineering then to me.

 @rrolly: I ride one and really like it but if we're talking frame quality they're not worth the premium price. Lots of stories regarding cheapo paint jobs, the welds are average at best and the chainstays might crack (hope they've addressed that on the new ones). But it's the best bike I've ridden and that's why they're still a pretty penny second hand.

 Having owned both the carbon and alloy versions of the Patrol, I can vouch for carbon being substantially more expensive for no real increase in my riding enjoyment. Will be continuing to ride aluminium frames for a while I think, may have to pick up the new Patrol too! Thanks Transition for continuing to make metal frames, especially with no-bullshit features like threaded BB, external brake routing etc.

 Sentinel is an alloy 4-bar Yeti SB5.5 with room for a bidon INSIDE the frame!

 @rrolly: It is an awesome bike! I've had demo 8, Giant, intense 951 and right now I have a TR450 2001 (pretty old) but it is absolutely amazing! I wouldn't go back to any of the old ones...

Check @TinyLittle2

 Shut up and take my money now ! Sorry 2016 Scout your gone get it Roll on 2017... now which one to get hmmmmm

 @Socket: now this is what ive been on about for ages. For the price of a carbon frame with a stock shock I'd much rather an alloy with a premium shock like a Push 11/6. Same goes for carbon wheels. I cant afford/justify them. Same for groupset. But not brakes. Need good brakes ( including rotors/pad combo). For the money i saved on NOT going carbon on frame/wheels ive got a premium coil shock/ti spring set up for me and the bike with an Avalanche drop in cartridge in some 36's and a set of hope tech 3 v4.........amazing to ride. SLX groupset works pretty darn well too!
....of course carbon with a Push would be better but everyone has a budget!

 I was close to buying a tr250 in 2010 but when I held it and inspected it, I just didn't see the value. Too expensive for what it was. These look great though and the price has come down if I am not mistaken. 2g for a nice ally frame with a fox shock is OK. I wonder if there will be a dhx2 option for frame only sales.

 Guerrilla Gravity already did.

 @slowrider73: My aluminum custom built Specialized Enduro only weighs 2lbs more on than the carbon Patrol similarly built. That being said, the carbon Patrol seems to ride better. As if the geometry just isn't all there on the Specialized.

 #makealuminiumgreatagain

 Yes. And the TR11 and Carbon versions are still to come

 New Scout looks so good with a rezzy shock and a "short" travel 36. Stout AF.

 @maxlombardy: Word!

 We hear you @carbonsmuggler420 ! We have been working hard to develop the Carbon Smuggler, hang tight buddy, it’s coming soon!

 @TransitionBikeCompany: Nice Move. Mouth watering video. Well done! I want one. Nooooow ...

 Nice call-back humor.

 Hahhaha! Great job!

 @TransitionBikeCompany: fantastic marketing job boys, got me to look back at the 2018 lineup, which I missed when it came out, everything looks sick! Hey, why did Menard move out next door on Cavendish?! It was great having real bike royalty as a neighbor!

 Love you guys for keeping it real!

 I'm on my way

 When will that be? I would love to get a demo in on one.

 @friendlyfoe: Beginning this fall. Some bikes may start arriving as early as October. We are very stoked to be doing this for our Canadian customers who cannot make it to Transition's head office in Bellingham.

 Can you pay my airfare over ?

 I will be coming over in mid to late 2018 to demo and maybe buy a Sentinel. Looking to switch my 2013 covert for a Sentinel.

 Im outside waiting..do u have coffee?

 @north-shore-bike-shop: Do you know what Canadian pricing is yet?

 @tunerguy: not final yet but rough estimates based on US pricing. Come by next week and we shoukd have pretty firm #s

 I didn't even notice that at first look...but wow! They actually reverted back to "old school" brake lines!! The internal routing was my biggest complaint with my Scout. Good on ya', Transition!

 External brake routing and TITS for mech, win-win!!

 I don't understand why external brake routing is important. Or more important than external RD routing. I set up my brakes once and bleed every year and the line doesn't need to come out. With the RD cable, I'm replacing housing and cable every six months and it's a hassle to do internally. What am I missing? Show me the light!

 @garrettstories: you buy a new rear brake or a new frame and the first thing you have to do is diassemble a perfectly bled brake to install it.

the question is, whats the advantage of internal anythingl? Aesthetics? Laaaaaame

Good looking bikes tho, I dont mean to just complain.

 @garrettstories: why are you replacing your housing so often? I've been running the same housing for years with no problems, just lube or replace the inner cable occasionally.

 @chize: I have a 2005 Rocky ETSX that has had the housing replaced I think twice in its existence.

 @garrettstories: imagine installing or replacing a rear brake when it's internally routed.

 I have converted my 'old' Scout to full external. Looks better, easier maintenance and a lot quieter. Dunno why they didn't go full external with these? Seems daft..?

 Double the post, double the fun!

 @garrettstories: My Scout came with Guide RS brakes and were replaced every 3-6 months under warranty( 2 sets), and each time I had to pay $50 to have the rear bled and installed because of internal routing...not fun! I've now got an XT on the front and waiting for the last SRAM brake I'll ever own to fail. and what @BryceBorlick said...internal routing does nothing for performance

 @chize: caught red-handed. I think I exaggerated a bit. I replace the housing and cable at least once a year. After a while, the outer raidal wiring shrinks and the midde part is longer. It affects shifting a little bit. So at a minimum I'm pulling the cable out and clipping the housing a little bit shorter. I do that between replacing the whole system.

Also, CHANGE your housing. The inner liners wear out. It'll feel like butter. Use the good shimano stuff too, It's called SB 41 or something like that.

 @BryceBorlick: Roger that. I guess I don't buy new bikes all that often. Also, internal routing everything does look mint, but man, it's a pain!

 @GlassGuy: ugh. Sorry for your SRAM warranty issues. I had mine warrantied a few times as well for the pump at the lever in heat. But all they did was replace the master. So I didn't have to re-route any wiring through the frame.

I would say they only thing it can do for "performance" is staying more protected during a crash. But I'm with you, it's not a big gain. I'm not arguing for internal routing, I just haven't see the big downsides.

 @garrettstories: If you're sticking with one frame for a long period then internal is less hassle but i go through periods where I swap parts to different frames, or want to try something new on a frame, and I can't be the experimental home mechanic as easily. I don't have the patience for it, nor the desire to bleed brakes(I seem to lose bleed kits).
And SRAM replaced full brakes and the lever at different times, but that still required a bleed. I felt like they should also pay for the install since it's their product that's crap.

 @garrettstories:

 Yes, it looks wrong. I find the overall design including paint job underwhelming as well, but Sentinel's geometry numbers look like a real winner among the latest crop of long travel 29ers.

 Exactly what I thought!

 Not as ugly as Norco's

 @Pichy: How dare you!??!?!? Norco is beautifully simple to look at, even if they haven't figured out how to use a 'threaded' bb!

 Oh thank you Transition for bringing us these sick features which aren't used in any other bike... Oh wait. Santa Cruz.

 Good and legal!

 But with reduced fork offset.

 It's not the HTA that makes a bike overkill, it's the weight and travel. A Nicolai Saturn 11 has a 67º HTA with only 120mm front fork and 105mm rear travel. Even the new Epic is considered "slack" by XC standards at a paltry 69º. Me personally? I'd love a 25lbs XC/TR bike with 66º HTA, though I'm not sure it'd love me riding it like a DH bike.

 @PHeller: for me it's not the head angle necessarily but the wheelbase. The Medium scout has grown 45mm I think in total length...that's not gonna be a good thing down the jumps. A 65° HA won't help me much, all I'm aniticapting is losing some dj/ jibability.

 @ThomDawson: That makes sense. I've never ridden BMX but have ridden DH, so I like me some wheelbase.

 @PHeller: yeah that's fair enough mate, I'm down with a long wheelbase when it's called for too. I've just got my knickers in a twist over the changes they've made to the scout. I don't think it's a bike that should necessarily have a long wheelbase, let alone a lop sided one with tiny rear end and massive front. But I'm being super keyboard now and I'll try and reserve my judgement until I've had a go.

 @ThomDawson: jumpability is a huge factor for me as well, and I was able to take the new Scout through the Whistler River jumps first go! It's definitely still a jumper. Feels like a mix between a trail, slalom, and slopestyle bike. Very snappy and playful, yet can smash any trail, that's where the slack headtube helps a bunch.

 @PHeller: Nah, my Nomad was 28lbs. The amount of travel didn't matter much because the progressive nature of VPP and a properly setup Fox Float X2. A slack HTA limits the bikes ability to climb, that's Science/Phyisics.

 @dualsuspensiondave: nah man, slack HTA has no effect on climbing ability. It's your position on the bike. Too many people ride bikes that are too short, then throw on short stems and wonder why they can't climb worth a damn. I ride a Meta with a 66º HTA and it's the best climbing bike I've owned, including hardtails with very steep geometry. Why? Long Reach (470mm for my 6' height) even with a short stem forces me run my saddle forward, combined with relatively steep STA, which puts more weight on the front wheel. Not to mention slightly longer chainstays. I'd be willing to bet your large Recluse (463) has a longer reach than the large Nomad v3 (437), and a slightly steeper STA, putting more of your weight forward and making for a better climbing bike. Do you find that the Recluse's 66º ruins it's climbing ability? As you lengthen the front center, it's essentially like running a longer stem (at least in terms of center of mass and position on bike.) Granted, a long stem and steep HTA will always climb better, but I'll take the sacrifices of a slack HTA and long reach, as long I'm not hanging over the rear wheel.

 @PHeller: @dualsuspensiondave: the one thing that I've found matters for climbing is the seat angle and the position of the seat relative to the BB. If the seat angle is steep enough everything else can be totally out of whack and I'll still climb well. Don't care how slack it is, how long or short it is - the bars can be in my lap or a mile away for all I care. I just need the seat angle to be steep, tip the saddle down at the nose and it's even better. Not saying either of your theories are wrong just throwing another one in the mix.

 @ThomDawson: I think I've kinda come that conclusion to a certain extent. I still think you've gotta have you weight centered properly, and too short of reach can throw of that centering. A good example are the Evil bikes. Very slack STA, but if you can stretch the reach out and slide your saddle really far forward on the rail, it'll help even things out a fair amount.

 @PHeller: I knew that's where you were going next. It actually is Science. Take two Nomads with the exact same geo except one has a 67 HTA and the other has a 65 HTA. You honestly think that they'll climb the same? Not a chance, I've done something similar. When standing it's a huge difference. Seated climbing is usually utilized on long sustained climbs, not when sprinting. I'm not concerned about fire road climbing. Most trail systems aren't just climbing up, then bombing down. Most aggressive riders maintain momentum and sprint up climbs while standing (with bikes like ours). And yes, the 66 HTA does slightly limit the Recluse's ability to climb. It does fairly well because of it's suspension design, but another bike from the same ilk with a 67 HTA will climb better when standing. When racing around with buddies or against the clock, climbing and sprinting efficiency when standing is important. These short travel bikes in the last few years make great enduro race bikes anywhere East of the Rockies. The slack HTA doesn't make much sense for everyday riders or racers not needing all the travel.

 @dualsuspensiondave: Fair enough. I suppose we have come to different conclusions. That being said, if I had a two-bike quiver, one big travel, slack etc, I wouldn't be opposed to something on the opposite end of the spectrum to compliment it, because despite my love affair with new school geometry, World Cup XC is still won on comparably steeper angles and there are reasons for that.

 @ThomDawson: Scout is a sick bike, have you ridden one ?

 @glenno: I dunno if I mentioned it but...I have ridden a Scout ;-)

 Dave, you'll get it once more of these 'progressive geo' bikes come out. Slack HTA isn't the limiting factor climbing, it's stupid short seat stays paired with stupid slack actual STA. Mojo, Pole, now Transition to an extent are moving the industry forward. The big boys are moving the tubes a few mm per year....In the case of the SC Hightower, if one were to set it up the way most people do here (160mm fork), the STA is brutal, it's no better than the first generation.

 @ukr77: Again, that's seated climbing you're talking about. Standing and sprinting is different. It's literally impossible for a really slack bike to pedal the same as one that is less slack. That's why XC race bikes aren't slack. For fire road climbs, I agree that it's more about positioning on the bike

 @dualsuspensiondave: It's physics, and High Speed Balanced Geometry would be a more accurate moniker? PNW weed is good as well as legal, and new geo is a legitimate refinement? I'm also skeptical, but @angelofverdun makes a compelling argument just above your original comment. Transition isn't marketing this as a bike that climbs well. Not much to do but seek out a demo, since uphill self-video footage will also be difficult to interpret even if someone does put it up.

 @ukr77: and Kona. Kona seems to be a year or two ahead on most of these changes. I sat on a 2017 process 153 with the 475mm reach and liked it but I want less travel. I didn't really like the parts spec for the 2017 process 134 so I've done nothing so far. That new scout seems so tempting.

 Or a skateboard! Super buff trail.

 Yeah that looks like a skatepark. But to be fair a god pro can make any trail look smooth and it looks like he is using a gimbal as well. I do wonder how much of a difference the SBG will make for proper rough trails. Most of us don't live near Bellingham or BC with active and dedicated trail builders, most of us ride rocky and rooty walking paths. At least where I live a rock garden is not a trail feature, it's the trail.

 I was going to say the same thing.. When you get a 29er with geo and travel like that, you need to find the roughest most steep trail you can and plow it at warp speed. The scout on the other hand is perfectly suited for a flow trail like that!

 @gooutsidetoday: That's my ride-after-work trail. Let's just say it's not as smooth as it might appear with the gimbal mount and the fuzziness inherent in these little cams. Yes, it's got a lot of flow to it; yes, there are a lot of nice buffed-out berms. But I'm a roller rather than a hucker, and I bottom out the suspension on my Process 111 several times on each run. Timing it from the video, @mikekazimer was definitely hauling the mail on this one.

 @g-42: yeah I ride with a gimbal when I film and between the gopro and a gimbal it minimizes everything, especially trail roughness/chatter. Not discounting his speed or skill at all, I was just basing it mainly off of the nature of those sweet berms and such! Looks like a fun trail regardless, just not what I think of when it comes to a rough trail or showcasing a bike with a penchant for gnar

 Goodbye Jeffsy - Hello Sentinel

 @elpsstoffo: I'll look after your Jeffsy for you. Good retirement community here.

 I can answer the first question - both Fox and RockShox are making reduced offset 29er forks - Fox's is 42mm, and RockShox's is 44mm, which is why the geo chart lists 43mm, to split the difference.

 Being a bigger guy requiring a XL bike im hoping for carbon asap. Im no huckster and haven't had issues with aluminum frames recently but fantastic plastic has to be the way to go.

 @AmericaOnline: Why? Not being facetious, but I'm 6'1" and 225#, riding an XL Process 111. I'm no enemy of carbon (I've got a whole garage full of windsurfing gear, including a hydrofoil, and man, carbon is amazing stuff) - I just don't see that much advantage over alloy. Granted, if I were looking for extra light weight, sure. But stout trail bikes (which all of these Transitions are, and what my Kona is), when built up with reasonable and durable parts spec and sized for big guys, tend to weigh in around 30# or slightly more regardless of whether you're going alloy or carbon (look at the weight differences between Santa Cruz lower-end carbon and alloy - not much there...). Maybe you like the feel of a carbon bike better? Can you tell a difference in stiffness?

 @g-42: I just think carbon is stronger im 6'5 250# and everything i read says carbon is the way to go for the big folk. other reasons i think carbon is quieter, not a reason to purchase but a benefit. the weight thing also plays a part now that om older. and finally its the looks. the carbon frames are just nicer imo.

 There's no magic going on that will stop the bike working with 'normal' offsets.

 @ThomDawson: But wouldn't it feel a bit more cumbersome?

 @g-42: the opposite...kind of. A 'traditional' offset will make the steering feel 'light' and 'lively'. A shorter offset will feel 'slower' and more 'stable' at speed and might feel cumbersome in some situations (slow speeds where accuracy of the front wheel is key, perhaps). That's not to say either is better or worse, there's a lot at play.

 what does an upper fork typically run? If available aftermarket, it may be an option for some.

 The trail measure is probably the same or close to being the same between the new and old model. They reduced the fork offset to get a more "direct" steering feel, but to get the same trail number, they had to slacken the HTA. It's all there in the Chris Porter Interview/SBG primer.

 @guycharlesvalois: Actually you have that backwards. Reducing the fork offset increases the amount of trail. Combined with the slacker head angle, which also increases trail, it's safe to say that the new model has a lot more trail than the old one.

 @dlxah: Yup, you're totally right I got that backwards. This pictures explains it: cdn.bikemag.com/uploads/2017/06/trail-1.jpg

 Proud to say we still have a functioning Bottle Rocket in the family.

 Mines in pieces. Sad!

 Just means you can fit a bottle inside the front triangle instead of underneath the downtube (or nowhere at all.) Read enough of these reviews and you'll find that @mikekazimer has bottle location VERY high on his list of priorities.

 "Wheels that are round and spin."

 @gtill9000: Thanks Kona...

 Just the brake hose I think which is waaaaay better than internal routing IMO. Having to bleed brakes and find a new olive and barb any time you install/remove a brake is annoying as hell.

 It will snap your headtube. Or just be a little bit slacker.

 you'd be closer to the TR design than a standard offset of 51mm would be. TR have stated here (in the SBG launch article I believe) that forks with "standard" offset will still work fine--the head angles aren't completely insane by modern standards even with a normal offset. Similar angles to an Evil with similar front/rear center measurements to the 2017 Konas.

 People seem to have this whole thing back to front. The head angle/ steering feel is more radical with reduced offset not the other way around. Having said that my theory on it is that the steeper bikes will benefit more from a reduced offset than the slacker ones. You'll be absolutely fine with the Smug and 46mm offset and it'll probably handle better than a many bikes out there but I'd be really interested to see just how good the Smug got with ~41mm offset. On the other hand the Sentinel at that short an offset doesn't sound appealing to me, more like a tank.

 @ThomDawson: Your theory is what is supposed to be correct, based on conventional wisdom and understanding of bikes. However things are different than they seem, and there are a lot more physics at play than one might think. We stopped looking at what is 'supposed' to work a few years ago and instead begun chasing what feels right.

We ride bikes, love bikes and make bikes. You might just have to ride it to believe it, don't judge a bike by it's numbers. There is no absolute.

 @TransitionBikeCompany: I did try it myself. I try not to open my mouth until I've tried stuff. So as I've not tried your bikes I'll try and reserve my judgement. I also think there's gonna be a lot people for whom your new bikes work depending on where they ride and other they don't as well.
My theory on the steeper bikes gaining more from reduced offset is based on my experience, as is yours. Not just somebody else's old theory. And for the record I totally respect you for doing what you think works and not doing what may be considered 'safe'.

 @TransitionBikeCompany: word

 @TransitionBikeCompany: I totally agree. I am not saying that I think your idea is silly, I'm sure you guys know what you're doing. I'm just trying to save some cash by reusing my brand new fork with a slightly longer offset and am wondering what the potential downfalls could be.

 @gbeaks33: All of the new gen SBG bikes will ride just fine with a standard offset fork, albeit a little slacker than the prior models. You just won't benefit from the full SBG system.

We do have a flush inventory of SBG compatible RockShox and FOX forks in all configurations to supply our frameset only customers when you're ready to party. #gotyourback.

 @TransitionBikeCompany: I thought I was getting a handle on how geometry changes affect handling but the more I've learnt, the more I realise I don't know - I built my hardtail up to have the same geometry as my full-sus (Banshee Spitfire) when both are at sag but it never felt quite right.

Now the full-sus has been further slackened (63.7/64.2 deg head angle) and the hardtail steepened (about 67 deg at sag) and they both feel great. I don't get why - I'll just try to ride my bike instead of thinking! Anyway, your new bikes look great, just my kind of geometry - and everyone should have seat tubes this short now.

 I'm wondering if FOX is going to smarten up as well. 58mm offset on the 49 leads myself to believe otherwise. You can do this now by ordering a 26 or 275 CSU for your FOX fork.

 Probably why they added an XS, wider range of sizes, a size for everyone! You could just get a small if you want the old reach.

 Me either. I'm a L on en Enduro, thinking I probably need an XL on most trail bikes, and I'd probably be looking at a medium patrol.

 The benefit is that tall guys who want a long bike (just thinking about me ) will finally have a bit of choice. It's coming slow, but it's coming.

 Take into consideration BOTH reach and effective top tube. Steeper seat angles make sure that handlebars don't get out of reach.

 @jollyXroger: seat angle doesn't mean much when descending. I have a long torso and short legs so it might be perfect for me.

 @friendlyfoe: True. Since I wish for for more reach (over my current bike) when descending I also find this development to be a good one.

 Giddy!!

 Even though on paper the longer reach numbers may seem daunting (a size large will now be 475mm), the new bikes will be spec'd with 10mm shorter stems, and the steeper seat angle will also help to maintain a similar bar to saddle distance to Transition's previous models. The reduced offset fork will also partially counteract the wheelbase length increase that comes with a slacker head angle.

The important thing to note is that whilst the sizing on paper may look a lot bigger that the previous years, if you rode a large frame before, you still ride a large frame now. Likewise for the other sizes.

qouted from Transition

 My medium Scout feels spot on, but my medium Patrol feels too short. My mate's Large Patrol feels too long. Very keen to try the new Medium Patrol!

 @src248: except they made the seatube so short that if you've got longer legs you can't size down! its went from being too small for bigger folk to screwing over people who have proportionally longer legs.

I'd have to ride a large to be able to get the seatpost long enough, at 5 foot 6 that reach is far too big

 The idea of a long top tube short stem is to change the handing of the bike and foot print of the wheels. The handle bars may stay in the exact same position by it's the wheel that will be moved further forward. This means the tipping point (over over the bars if that's easy to think about) is moved (think of it as a see saw, a short see saw reacts very quickly to any movement catching a rider out, a longer see saw will react slower so the rider can predict where their weight needs to be moved to keep it level). The draw backs is it can make it too stable and boring, a bit harder to ride slow and technical trails.

 @RockNRolla92: Are you sure about that? My 170mm Reverb is enormously long! I'm 5" taller than you, with long legs for my height, and riding a frame with a 430mm seat tube.

 @threehats: I'm currently on a bike with a 440mm seattube with my 150 kslev 60mm out the frame, if the seattube is straight enough I could fit a 185mm dropper.

Depends on minimum insertion on the dropper as well as the seattube being straight enough to fit a dropper.

I'd need a small for the reach but at 360mm I'm not sure even a 185mm dropper would sit in the frame enough.

On another point though, the seated top tube length would mean I'd hit my knees of the bars lol

 I am 6'5" / 196, and would probably choose the L over the very looooong XL. Anyway, won't complain, as at least there is choice now!

 @mattvanders: so the main advantage of a longer reach bike is having more time to react to mistakes made on the trail?

It's crazy to me that the Scout has a 42mm longer wheelbase in a medium and the same chainstay length. How can that be an improvement on a bike where no one is buying to win racing or to have stability at speed. It's meant to be playful, how does adding that much length to a bike improve the fun factor.

 @src248: wish they'd just made the reach a size larger. Now if you really wanna keep the same reach you're shit outta luck and stuck between going longer or shorter. Not a huge issue but worth pointing out.

 I reliably fit most brands' medium bikes, and I demo'd a medium Kona 134, 450mm reach, 40mm stem and it was awesome! Finally didn't feel cramped and steering was just right. Given how much I like long frames, I'm starting to wonder if my torso is longer than average/legs shorter than average for my height.

 @ihatetomatoes: missed your comment earlier. Totally agree. Really don't think these changes fit the Scout. Tiny rear centre, massive front centre and its 42mm longer. I'd have been happier to see em keep the head angle steeper and use the increased trail to give some high speed stability while maintaining a short, balanced wheelbase. Feel like such an armchair bike designer but I really like the Scout and can't help but feel these changes are for the worse not better on this particular model.

 @ihatetomatoes: I would not call it more time to react to mistakes, I would call it keeping your body weight more centeral in more conditions (in the since not having to hang off the back when going down steep shoots ( which means you can't turn due to arms being fully straight) or standing and putting extra weight on the bars on climbs to prevent the front wheel lifting ( but meaning the rear wheel slips out). I know long bikes don't make much sense but once you have tried it and get use to how you have to ride them they are great. You end up riding with more weight over the handle bars but with your body more central.

There are a few interesting atticals on MBR magazine website by Chris potter on frame geometry, explains it a lot better they I can.

www.mbr.co.uk/news/bike_news/size-matters-part-3-bicycle-geometry-sucks-324160
www.mbr.co.uk/news/size-matters-part-2-finding-limits-geometry-sizing-323289
www.mbr.co.uk/news/size-matters-why-were-all-riding-bikes-that-are-too-small-321374

 @ThomDawson: Glad I'm not the only one concerned over the length increase in the Scout. I can see the advantages for bikes like the patrol and Sentinal where your planning to ride some burly tracks but the Scout thrives on the fun factor. Either way I wish I never read about the geometry and just rode one before judging it. I'll have to try and clear my mind when I do and not be concerned over numbers. The good thing is the new small is very close in numbers to the old medium. Even in effective top tube so a small might still have that playful feel and not feel to cramped in the seated peddling position.

 @mattvanders: thanks for the articles. Exactly what I needed

 @ihatetomatoes: The Scout still turns trails into playgrounds.

All of the new gen SBG bikes maintain the same fun and playful characteristics of the original bikes, only now with more party. If you rode an M before, you'd still want an M, and it would not feel cumbersome in any way.

We've done our homework. And if you're still not sure, come for a rip. We'll be doing plenty of demo's in the coming months and you can always come visit us.

Cheers!

 @TransitionBikeCompany: Trip to Bellingham is already planned! Just hope you have some demo's ready by the time we're there (End of Sept.)

 I have a 2016 Smuggler and it is a crazy tight squeeze to get a 2.3 Butcher in there. This is a real problem and I know a lot of people complained, so hopefully they addressed it.

 We've got a detective in our midst, boys.

 @mikekazimer: What size tires are on the Sentinel? Is there enough clearance for wider tires? Thanks.

 @bryanjoh: given that there is boost spacing on both ends i think it wont be as tight as its been the last few years

 It's about effing time.

Don't get me wrong I love my carbon Patrol but the first one I had was really poorly built. Bearings were on their way out after 8 rides, most of the pivots and shock bolts were all out of alignment etc. The warranty replacement frame was much better, still not perfectly aligned but the bearings have lasted much longer but still nowhere near what you would expect from a £2500 frame. I guess they got sick of replacing peoples' bearings so actually decided to equip them from the off with half decent bearings.

I'm just changing the bearings myself now at about a year on and nowhere near as many rides as it should have had, half are shot and the others just really gritchy.

If the bike wasn't so bloody capable and fun to ride it would have been inserted back where it was bought from long ago. Hopefully they will get the fine detail right on the carbon versions when they do release them, but for me the extra price really wasn't worth it, ally next time.

 @veero: Same with my TR500 - bearings were complete garbage. No problems what so ever with enduro bearings going forward.

 I too am waiting for "shit brown" and "puke green" like some other companies think I desire.

 I too would like an idea of frame weights, preferably in large sizes.

 I don't have frame only weights, but the large Sentinel (www.pinkbike.com/photo/15008657) I've been testing weighs 32 pounds without pedals.

 @mikekazimer: You've been testing it without pedals?

 @mikekazimer: I'm assuming from the pics there isn't much carbon on that bike?

 @PHeller: nope, not much carbon - just the cranks.

 @mikekazimer: any news on when it'll actually be available. I've been waiting for this announcement for a couple months now. Was hoping for carbon... but if I can get my hands on one of these I'll ride aluminum. LOL!

 most companies id be on a large at 5'10'' but I feel the best on Mediums across their line.Ive spent a fair amount of time on both large and medium Scouts and Smugglers. I personally dont prefer a smaller bike, just the one that fits the best. Climbing with a shorter offset fork that had more travel than spec was spot on with my Scout. They nailed the geo when they built the bike around a 140mm, and having the shorter offset maintained the axel to crown when i went up to 150mm. i often giggled about how easy tech climbs were, at crawling speeds or punching up shelvy loose stuff,

 love that acronym=)

 tctnbikr- A 170mm dropper will lower all the way to the seatpost collar on M, L and XL 27.5 frames and on L and XL 29's. It will get pretty close to this on the M size 29 frames. With 170, 150, 125 and 100mm droppers you can get the saddle as low (or high) as one would need on the S and new XS size options in both wheel sizes.

The rocker pivot has been moved more forward than the 1st gen bikes to accommodate this feature, and the rest of the kinematic points have been adjusted as necessary to achieve the same, if not better suspension feel to the previous bikes. win win.

 If you run a 200 dropper, your frame is too small. Just look at the DH guys, they dont slam their seat, and they are riding some pretty rowdy trails at times!

 @YouHadMeAtDrugs: Maybe - but then again, having extra standover and having the seat a little lower makes it oh so much easier to get that bike/body separation. At my level (perpetual intermediate), I need all the help I can get. Having gone from 125 to 150, I was stoked. Then I tried a friend's 200 and was blown away by how nice that was. And I've got pretty short legs for my size (6'1", but only 32" inseam) - someone with longer legs would benefit even more.

 @YouHadMeAtDrugs @g-42: Exactly! I'm 6' with a 32" inseam. 200mm dropper is a must for the steeps I ride up and down. Folks always make the DH pro analogy. To me that doesn't hold water:

1) Most DH tracks are not near as steep or narrow as the trails I ride. That's not taking anything away from DH racing, it just is what it is

2) DH bikes don't need to immediately transition into an uphill climbing weapon capable of inching up 20% slopes

3) I'm an expert at best, not a DH Pro

Long before dropper were around we were running our seats with 8" extension and slamming them for the DHs. I know guys that bought a frame size too small so they could slam the seat further out of the way.

If one can get along with less than a 200 for the trails they ride, great. But companies shouldn't constrain their designs.

 @tcmtnbikr: I am the same height and inseam, and 150mm is the max I can go. Any longer I can't even turn the pedals when I'm sitting. You have some interesting morphology ! 8-)

 @ukr77: I have no interest in turning the pedals with the seat dropped. I have interest in getting the seat as far away from my chest and gnads as possible when the trail tilts to -35% or more.

 @TransitionBikeCompany: I'm on the Sentinel like white on rice. Question on frame only options, will frame kits be available with forks, Elite and factory (sweet sweet orange ?

 @tcmtnbikr: The seat comes in handy when your'e one foot out, chest on the seat on trails like Gravatron in Pemby ;-)

 @TransitionBikeCompany: will something like the 9point8 200mm dropper work on a Large Sentinel? I'm currently running a 150mm Vyron on my size L Smuggler and I have probably 100mm of exposed seat post, curse my dancers legs.

 Even more bonkers is the 140mm 29er also has a 64 degree headangle. That thing is gonna be fast!

 @Mugen: Not a huge fan of the 29ers. I'm still on 26 and making the first steps to move to 650b.
Also, the 29er wheels seem too huge to me.

 Yeah the head angles seem nuts, in a good way nuts

 They've not made brake rotors large enough to stop going full pelt on that sentinel

 I guess they're counting on the reduced fork offset to, well, offset that.

 @DrPete: I'm a little confused on this. Doesn't reduced offset increase trail, ie increase "stability" ? Therefore aren't reduced offset and slack HA both contributing to the same feel ? I understand that reduced offset is contributing to that in a different way then slack HA (ie it reduces wheelbase and the tendency of HA to feel floppy). But sometimes people talk about reduced offset like it is "offsetting" the effect of slack HA, whereas it seems to me you could theoretically reduce offset in order to maintain a steeper HA and still get the "stability".

I'm interested in understanding this because I am not a fan of overly slack HA, especially on trail bikes.

 @preston67: Yes, you are correct that reducing the fork offset and slacking the head angle both increase trail. I'm copying @TransitionBikeCompany 's response to a similar question from another comment on this article, since I think it addresses your question perfectly:

"Your theory is what is supposed to be correct, based on conventional wisdom and understanding of bikes. However things are different than they seem, and there are a lot more physics at play than one might think. We stopped looking at what is 'supposed' to work a few years ago and instead begun chasing what feels right.

We ride bikes, love bikes and make bikes. You might just have to ride it to believe it, don't judge a bike by it's numbers. There is no absolute."

IMO the jury is still out on this one. I'm really looking forward to some more in-depth reviews of these new SBG bikes and hopefully a chance to demo one of them.

 @preston67: you are mostly correct in your thinking. Slack HA + reduced offset = doubling down on stability.
But reduced offset also = more flop. Not less. Thats pretty much why we've been using more offset up to this point.
Though it is (as always) a matter of trade offs. I think that when you get into how the bike corners is when you start to see the benefits of increased accuracy in reduced offsets, particularly at speed, but at what cost to low speed situations will depend how often you're hauling and how often you're teetering down some slick, rooty 720° switchbacks.
DH race bikes are still using shorter reach and longer offsets than our 'trail' bikes and there ARE guys who have the choice to do otherwise.
How much of this 'long, low, slack, reduced offset' is gimmick and how much is legit?

 @ThomDawson: Think about this for a second- The standard fork offsets being utilized today were developed when mountain bikes had steeper headtube angles, frame length's were shorter and in general were used very differently. For example; when 26, 27.5 and 29" offsets were normalized per wheelsize, dropper posts weren't even commonplace on trail bikes.... let that sink in for a minute.

We have tested all offset variations, headtube angles and frame lengths extensively for the last couple years, and found a formula that works better than what's being used. This goes for climbing, descending and everything in between at all speeds. We don't just ride our trailbikes downhill mind you.

What we've found is the results are different than what they should be, based on the numbers. There is so much more going on than what a given 'trail' number would suggest. We could provide you all the research we've done along with all of our testing, but then we'd be providing you all of our hard work.

look up 'bike wheel flop' on Wikipedia. It's likely different than what you think it means. Wheel velocity plays a major role in it, and a big part of the magic sauce and basis for the SPEED balanced geometry. It works harmoniously with the longer trail figure and provides benefits where you need it, when you need it, based on the speed you are going.

SBG, Some Bullshit Gimmick? You'll have to be the judge after riding one. Do you really think we would implement something like this into our bikes that wasn't awesome?

 @TransitionBikeCompany: please, don't patronize me. I know very well what wheel flop is. As I said before I try not to open my mouth before I've tried something and can speak with the advantage of experience. I'm not mindlessly bashing your bikes, I'm trying to add to a discussion about how reduced offset on our mtbs effects their handling. A lot of people seem confused over the matter and I can't help but chime in as I really like your current bikes and have spent some time playing with offsets. Though
I agree the proof will be in the riding all we have to go on right now are the geometry charts and people's past experiences and you can't blame us for trying to make some sense of it. Transition did implement internal cable routing that was really quite terrible and is the biggest industry-wide gimmick going so at least you weren't the only ones. But yeah...I do think you might implement something that I personally didn't think was awesome. But I'm not saying you haven't put the work or research into to, just that you may have come to a different conclusion to me.

 @ThomDawson: No patronizing intended.

Let's get you on a V2 Giddy up, and you can see first hand for yourself what the complete package feels like. As we mentioned earlier, you might have to ride it to believe it. You could say they defy the physics.

 @TransitionBikeCompany: I'll be looking for a demo over here asap, I'm intrigued to say the least. One thing in particular that I haven't tried (and that your new bikes incorporate) is short chainstays coupled with the slackness/ reduced offset thing. Perhaps the shorter chainstays will take some of the weight off the front axle and possible reduce some of the associated negative attributes of wheel flop (which I found to be very prominent hence my scepticism BUT my experiments were with comparatively much longer chainstays). Most people are talking about getting more weight over the front axle not away from it these days but perhaps your slacker HA + reduced offset formula allows for good cornering AND short chainstays...? I dunno! So yeah a demo is much needed!

 @hitarpotar: I made the jump to 650b in Feb of this year. The 29er doesn't seem so big now.

 That is upper SST on Galbraith. Not a skate park and certainly rougher than it appears on the video, although very fast and fun. At 3:17 that is a rock that he dropped that will give most mortals a pucker.

 This is also the best video of the trail I have seen. @mikekazimer rides it nice and the video is smooth, nice work. Super fun trail.

 @Flyxaos: That rock drop is very reasonable as a rolldown. You know you've found a local with big cojones when they drop it, even more so when they hit it full speed on a night ride(!!!) like all the Transition employees do

 Sam

 First couple sections of SST (AKA Golden Spike) at Galbraith in Bellingham (TR's home base as well as Kazimer's). The sign's right there at the beginning

 @bmck: Thanks man!

 i've got a 200mm 9point8 on my alloy Patrol in size xl. maxed out insertion balls deep and the top of the saddle is just perfect for seat fire road climbing with my 37" inseam. i was worried at first, but also keep in mind that 9point8 offers spacers to reduce travel in small increments if needed. i don't need and the range of usable ride heights is amazing. bottomed out is ideal for steep downs now, no complaints, just perfect.

 Is there some advantage to having a light trail bike? My carbon Scout is a trail destroyer and weight 31 pounds 8 ounces. The weight helps keep it planted in the rough stuff.

 @RichPune:

29... low travel bike.

27.5... mid travel bike.

two totally different animals and I'd build them completely different. But to tell you the truth... the scout has been the only bike holding me back from 29. I've literally been waiting for this announcement for 2 months.

I don't understand doing a full line aluminum release like this. They're updating 3 bikes they already have... 2 of which are available in carbon... and all 3 are currently available in aluminum.

Would have made more sense to update the already available smuggler and drop a carbon one.

I'm a huge fan of transition. Trust me. I was really hoping this release would make my frame choice easy on me. Carbon sentinel or carbon smuggler and I wait. But now I'm not waiting. I'll get something else and next year if they release either in carbon I'll buy then. Can't wait any longer. Co-workers are relentless right now. Need a new rig. LOL!

 I am also with you on this. My only gripe about the line at all. Carbon Smuggler was something I was almost positive would be a thing today=(

 Have you heard about this new Eagle thing? Makes any bike easy to pedal.

 @onemanarmy: I get it. Not being able to wait is how I got my first Transition. I kept waiting for Knolly to come out with the carbon Warden. Couldn't wait any longer and got a carbon Patrol. In hindsight, I'm glad Knolly took so long cuz it eventually got me to the carbon Scout, which is my favorite bike. Hopefully not waiting works out as good for you as it did for me.

 Well, Evil just released their updated Following, if that's your thing...

 @RichPune: dont be surprised if i post up i bought a scout. Lol.

 @RichPune: I'm having a difficult time deciding between the Patrol and Scout. Either bike will serve as my primary bike. I am 40 years old, 6'2", 177 lbs, previously 210 lbs(I shed 30 pounds over the summer to a weight I haven't seen since I was 18 years old.) I notice a big increase in overall athleticism and cannot wait to park my only bike, a single speed trail whip, and get on a fresh Transition steed. I live in the mid-atlantic region and frequently ride the rocky, rooty trails of the Fredrick Watershed in the state of Maryland. The trails vary from XC, freeride and biker built down hill sections known as the "Drop trails." Did I say rocky and r ooty? These old mountains trails in Appalachia are commonly technical and rough, so I need a bike that can not only shred on groomed park trails at Snowshoe Mountain in WV, but the trickiest of trails in West Virginia. My heart and mind lead me to the Patrol, but I read a lot here on the interests that folks often sell their Patrols in order to acquire the shorter travel Scout. Do you ride rocky, rough trails with rock drops, or more groomed, flowy trails that I believe a Scout would certainly be the preferred sled? Just looking for any input you may have of the two bikes. Can't wait to get my hands on a 2018 Tranny. Also that Sentinel looks pretty rad, but I don't know if I could switch to a 29 inch platform.

 @osofun: I'm shorter than you at 5'8" but rented and disliked many 29ers. I recommend renting one first. I rented a Bronson yesterday that I liked but am holding out for a 2018 scout. I have been riding some rocky rooty trails in NorCal that tempted me to get a Patrol but travel is increasing on both bikes this year and I want something playful so scout sbg it is. No need for carbon imo so I'm thinking gx build and maybe going 2.8" tires at low pressure for grip and gnar bashing.

 140 is the new 160

 Pinkbike is not the place for goat salesmen.

 Here's a shot of a size large Sentinel: www.pinkbike.com/photo/15008657

 @mikekazimer: thanks!

 Seat angle probably

 that and the steeper seat tube angle.

 Longer reach=slacker STA. Those 77 degrees they listed look a bit fishy to me.

 TR-11???

 @dv8416: Looks like either Gunsmoke Blue or Bone Grey for the Smuggler

 dang it

 If my V1 Smuggler has them I don't know why the Sentinel wouldn't...

 Pretty sure it's the effective sta. i.e not blatant lies

 @ThomDawson: Effective STAs only have a meaning when you place the saddle at the same spot the designer did when drawing the frame. Most of us don't conform to the "norm" or "size" of a bicycle frame, so until the real STA of the frame (minus the seatpost) is listed, this is just BS.

 @southoftheborder: the effective sta isn't BS dude. It's (usually) the angle of the imaginary line from the center of the BB to the centre of the seat collar from horizontal. Not lies, not BS. Just one way of showing the seat angle. You need a few other parameters if you want to find out the exact seat angle at your saddle height (which could be anywhere), not just the actual sta. It would be helpful if manufacturers would include the actual sta but we can't expect them to list angles for every given mm of saddle height, seat post offset, where the saddle is clamped etc etc. Cool ya jets, do some guesstimations. Email Transition and ask for the actual sta and get your notebook out if you must. But you can't call bs on legit numbers.

 @southoftheborder: true, but I guess you'll set your saddle height the same way on pretty much all bikes, when you pedal. Hence, it's just a measure to compare between bikes. I don't care if it will be, say, 75 instead of 77 at the end of the day, because probably I'm also riding my current Spartan at 71 instead of the listed 73...

 @ThomDawson: I went out too strong-worded and got burnt pretty bad.

What I meant to say was the actual STA will depend not just on the saddle's height, but also on the angle the seat tube forms with the "effective"STA at their intersection (probably the edge of the seat post's collar). When I see a bike with such slack "real" seat tube angle, I tend to think I'll be dangling my fruit over the rear axle. Even more when Transition says they're getting longer reach figures with the same top tube light.

Horses for courses I guess. The LLS trend is clearly in full swing, and I'm not going to be the one opposing it, given I also enjoy it.

 That's because Transition makes good bikes, not e bikes.

 Guessing the same as all their past models 31.6

 I think they were trying to increase the image's exposire so you could see the bike; but managed to blow out the colours in the rest of the shot.

 @korev: @Brytrl8tr I shot all of the images for this article, and I can assure you no photoshop was going on. The last image was processed using lightroom, which allowed me to pull out some of the detail from the shadows, to allow the viewer to see the bike in the foreground without blowing out the background. The photo was taken in a very magical place, so I can see why you would think it wasn't real, but somehow it was, and is, a real place that we rode mountain bikes.

 @schilly: CAn you tell us where that photo was taken ? I am an avid seeker of places to swim when riding if that's anywhere near Bham it would be nice to share. My first guess is you're in BC somewhere though.

 @preston67: ahh shoot, I can't really blow up this spot, in respect to the people who brought us there. But I can tell you that it lies in the wilderness around pemberton, and that its worth a long weekend of adventuring to find it! Mainly because even if you don't find this spot, you will find many that are like it, and equally as awesome. An easy way to get into a similar zone is to ride the Lord of the Squirrels trail