Going by the junction at bb and seat tube post I’d assume it’s a dh bike. I remember during his inside line one of the canfields mentioned he thought commencal’s high pivot was too high. Seems pretty much everyone agrees including commencal.
Pretty short chainstays on the new jedi, especially for L and Xl. 450 reach is also a bit short for the medium. Happy to see more dh bikes being produced however.
Pretty short chainstays on the new jedi, especially for L and Xl. 450 reach is also a bit short for the medium. Happy to see more...
Pretty short chainstays on the new jedi, especially for L and Xl. 450 reach is also a bit short for the medium. Happy to see more dh bikes being produced however.
I like the chainstay lenght (Know it from my Demo). Makes it playful, but still stable in combination with the reach.
The reach is perfect. Who should ride a L or XL when even the Medium is that long? Also leaves room for a S or XXL.
Pretty short chainstays on the new jedi, especially for L and Xl. 450 reach is also a bit short for the medium. Happy to see more...
Pretty short chainstays on the new jedi, especially for L and Xl. 450 reach is also a bit short for the medium. Happy to see more dh bikes being produced however.
It's 443mm at sag, and I think it gets longer as it goes through the travel.
I'd also like to see a slightly longer reach on the Large, My Spur is 480 and my Enduro is 487, it's hard for me to imagine a DH bike having a shorter reach than my Enduro.
Pretty short chainstays on the new jedi, especially for L and Xl. 450 reach is also a bit short for the medium. Happy to see more...
Pretty short chainstays on the new jedi, especially for L and Xl. 450 reach is also a bit short for the medium. Happy to see more dh bikes being produced however.
It's 443mm at sag, and I think it gets longer as it goes through the travel.
I'd also like to see a slightly longer reach on...
It's 443mm at sag, and I think it gets longer as it goes through the travel.
I'd also like to see a slightly longer reach on the Large, My Spur is 480 and my Enduro is 487, it's hard for me to imagine a DH bike having a shorter reach than my Enduro.
As Primoz said this is very common, look at the Spec. Demo for example. The longest one they make has a 466mm Reach.
Pretty short chainstays on the new jedi, especially for L and Xl. 450 reach is also a bit short for the medium. Happy to see more...
Pretty short chainstays on the new jedi, especially for L and Xl. 450 reach is also a bit short for the medium. Happy to see more dh bikes being produced however.
It's 443mm at sag, and I think it gets longer as it goes through the travel.
I'd also like to see a slightly longer reach on...
It's 443mm at sag, and I think it gets longer as it goes through the travel.
I'd also like to see a slightly longer reach on the Large, My Spur is 480 and my Enduro is 487, it's hard for me to imagine a DH bike having a shorter reach than my Enduro.
As Primoz said this is very common, look at the Spec. Demo for example. The longest one they make has a 466mm Reach.
I've been out of the DH game for almost 10 years, as in not owning one. So I didn't realize they have shorter reach numbers than Enduro bikes. I love descending on my Enduro, so I just assumed DH bikes would have at least the same reach numbers if not longer.
- New Supreme DH bike (updated design / VPP)
- New Park bike with 180-190mm travel in the front, likely with mixed wheels
What are your...
- New Supreme DH bike (updated design / VPP)
- New Park bike with 180-190mm travel in the front, likely with mixed wheels
What are your thoughts?
A new Supreme SX would definitely be a nice thing.
Hopefully they make the Supreme SX their high pivot park/enduro, and keep the clash while making it SHORTER and bump up travel. Supreme SX probably mullet and keep clash 27.5.
Hopefully they make the Supreme SX their high pivot park/enduro, and keep the clash while making it SHORTER and bump up travel. Supreme SX probably mullet...
Hopefully they make the Supreme SX their high pivot park/enduro, and keep the clash while making it SHORTER and bump up travel. Supreme SX probably mullet and keep clash 27.5.
I could see a Supreme SX replacing the Clash if it's offered in multiple wheel size options like the new Torque. A 27.5 option would be pretty similar to the current Shore from Norco, and a 29 wouldn't be far off the Range assuming they use their virtual high pivot as opposed to the single pivot on the current Supreme DH.
As much as not everyone would like it, geo on any new bike is sure to be at least as long as any of their outgoing bikes, though I do thing we're reaching a point of diminishing returns with 480+ reaches on a size large
I could see a Supreme SX replacing the Clash if it's offered in multiple wheel size options like the new Torque. A 27.5 option would be...
I could see a Supreme SX replacing the Clash if it's offered in multiple wheel size options like the new Torque. A 27.5 option would be pretty similar to the current Shore from Norco, and a 29 wouldn't be far off the Range assuming they use their virtual high pivot as opposed to the single pivot on the current Supreme DH.
As much as not everyone would like it, geo on any new bike is sure to be at least as long as any of their outgoing bikes, though I do thing we're reaching a point of diminishing returns with 480+ reaches on a size large
What I hope they do is make it like their downhill bikes with the furious and the supreme, but just clash and supreme SX, because high pivot is not as good for freeeride.
It is unfortunately though not due to any logical reason. DH should have longer reach numbers to accommodate taller riders.
Part of the reason DH bikes have shorter reaches than trail bikes is because of the long front center due to the longer axle to crown and slack HA. The more stretched out you are the harder it is to go over the bars but the less leverage you have to create a front wheel lift and rotate around the rear axle. The longer the front center, the harder it is as well to get that front wheel up. Of course there's more to it when you think about levers as geometry is a whole package with the BB drop in relation to both axles, rear center and how the geo changes through the travel along with the leverage curves but that's the general idea of shorter reaches on DH bikes in my understanding
I think it has more to do with the steep seat tube angles modern trail bikes have and the required top tubes to make the rider comfortable sitting down and pedaling, which just results in a very long reach. As for DH bikes, nobody seriously sits on the seats of them, so the correct cockpit length isn't as important. So that's why the reaches are shorter.
I think it has more to do with the steep seat tube angles modern trail bikes have and the required top tubes to make the rider...
I think it has more to do with the steep seat tube angles modern trail bikes have and the required top tubes to make the rider comfortable sitting down and pedaling, which just results in a very long reach. As for DH bikes, nobody seriously sits on the seats of them, so the correct cockpit length isn't as important. So that's why the reaches are shorter.
Maybe.
Reach has been actually extended primarily for the cockpit space and overall better feeling of a bike, shorter stems which also increase maneuverability and longer wheelbase for stability. IIRC Moondraker was the first to push the concept, but they did not understand it fully so their early bikes still had ~73° STA with long reach and they were not really fun to pedal around, fantastic descenders for its time though. And there have been bikes on market with long reach and slack STA for years now (2018 giant reign comes to mind, but also many others who provided steep effective angles at bar height, but actual angles were something else...)
Steeper STA are actually latest development and simply a natural consequence of longer bikes and body position pushed forward.
Reach turned into n1 metric in bike geometry so it seems like everything else became irrelevant... But if you compare geometry numbers from years ago you'll notice that amids all of the longer/slackerHA/steeperSA changes one dimension didn't change much. Thats ETT, the one that actually matters while you sit. Body position has moved forward (longer reach, steeper SA), but the length of the bike while sitting down is not that different, althrough it feels different.
The reaches on DH bikes are actually catching up, for example canyon sender and spectral both have identical reaches on all sizes, thats nowadays fairly standard 460/485mm for M/L, but on the average they are still a bit shorter compared to enduro/trails bikes, would be interesting to know why is that...
Reach has been actually extended primarily for the cockpit space and overall better feeling of a bike, shorter stems which also increase maneuverability and longer wheelbase...
Reach has been actually extended primarily for the cockpit space and overall better feeling of a bike, shorter stems which also increase maneuverability and longer wheelbase for stability. IIRC Moondraker was the first to push the concept, but they did not understand it fully so their early bikes still had ~73° STA with long reach and they were not really fun to pedal around, fantastic descenders for its time though. And there have been bikes on market with long reach and slack STA for years now (2018 giant reign comes to mind, but also many others who provided steep effective angles at bar height, but actual angles were something else...)
Steeper STA are actually latest development and simply a natural consequence of longer bikes and body position pushed forward.
Reach turned into n1 metric in bike geometry so it seems like everything else became irrelevant... But if you compare geometry numbers from years ago you'll notice that amids all of the longer/slackerHA/steeperSA changes one dimension didn't change much. Thats ETT, the one that actually matters while you sit. Body position has moved forward (longer reach, steeper SA), but the length of the bike while sitting down is not that different, althrough it feels different.
The reaches on DH bikes are actually catching up, for example canyon sender and spectral both have identical reaches on all sizes, thats nowadays fairly standard 460/485mm for M/L, but on the average they are still a bit shorter compared to enduro/trails bikes, would be interesting to know why is that...
I've assumed it has to do with trail steepness. Downhill involves consistently and particularly steep sections, which means the distance from hips to hands gets pretty far as the hips go up and back while the hands go down. If you start from a position where you are already stretched out, the steep sections will quickly lead to the dreaded situation where you are unintentionally pulling up on the bars.
In a sense, your instantaneous reach is the horizontal distance from the BB to the bars, and that gets longer as the front wheel drops relative to the back wheel; on flat ground, reach is one side of a right triangle formed by the BB and the bars, but it effectively becomes the hypotenuse of that triangle when BB and bars become level.
Karabuka that was my point, effective top tubes have barely changed (enough to cover the stem lengths and the relative horizontal location of the 'seat end of ETT' and the seat itself - the steeper the SA, the more forward the seat is, requiring a longer ETT for the same seat to bar length, at least in the XL frame size realm), but reach values have grown a lot, mostly due to the seat tubes getting steeper. If you rotate the seat tube around the joint with the top tube (keeping the ETT more or less the same), the BB will be moved backwards. Which means the reach will be longer.
As for why DH bikes are shorter, it miiiiiiight have something to do with trail bikes actually being on the long side reach wise because of the cockpit constraints... After all, my 150 mm XL trailbike has an almost 1300 mm wheelbase, which is just 2 cm shorter than an XL V10 with a 3 cm longer reach value (and a similar rear centre).
Many dh bikes have very similiar stand over and seattube lengths across sizes. Meaning riders can more easily size up or size down for preference. I imagine this in part a reason why reach hasn’t grow much in the dh market as you can simply go up a size without worrying about a high seattube going down.
We haven't gone full banana with bike Geo yet, my new bike is 505 reach, 1336 wheelbase with 462mm chainstays and rides perfectly fine to me, In the future I think head angles will stay the same (63 been the enduro "norm" even) but Chainstays will grow substantially, therefore creating some long wheelbase monsters. 1300mm wheelbase won't be uncommon.
The reach is perfect. Who should ride a L or XL when even the Medium is that long? Also leaves room for a S or XXL.
Would like to have the raw frame in L !!!
I'd also like to see a slightly longer reach on the Large, My Spur is 480 and my Enduro is 487, it's hard for me to imagine a DH bike having a shorter reach than my Enduro.
- New Park bike with 180-190mm travel in the front, likely with mixed wheels
What are your thoughts?
A new Supreme SX would definitely be a nice thing.
As much as not everyone would like it, geo on any new bike is sure to be at least as long as any of their outgoing bikes, though I do thing we're reaching a point of diminishing returns with 480+ reaches on a size large
Maybe.
Steeper STA are actually latest development and simply a natural consequence of longer bikes and body position pushed forward.
Reach turned into n1 metric in bike geometry so it seems like everything else became irrelevant... But if you compare geometry numbers from years ago you'll notice that amids all of the longer/slackerHA/steeperSA changes one dimension didn't change much. Thats ETT, the one that actually matters while you sit. Body position has moved forward (longer reach, steeper SA), but the length of the bike while sitting down is not that different, althrough it feels different.
The reaches on DH bikes are actually catching up, for example canyon sender and spectral both have identical reaches on all sizes, thats nowadays fairly standard 460/485mm for M/L, but on the average they are still a bit shorter compared to enduro/trails bikes, would be interesting to know why is that...
In a sense, your instantaneous reach is the horizontal distance from the BB to the bars, and that gets longer as the front wheel drops relative to the back wheel; on flat ground, reach is one side of a right triangle formed by the BB and the bars, but it effectively becomes the hypotenuse of that triangle when BB and bars become level.
As for why DH bikes are shorter, it miiiiiiight have something to do with trail bikes actually being on the long side reach wise because of the cockpit constraints... After all, my 150 mm XL trailbike has an almost 1300 mm wheelbase, which is just 2 cm shorter than an XL V10 with a 3 cm longer reach value (and a similar rear centre).
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation