Modern geometry - should I give it a go?

[Ming the Merciless]

How bike fare in proper mountain terrain

Im thinking 120mm traval modern bike will make you smile..

Has the front travel been reduced in recent times as bikes are now 29r?

 

[Crackle]

Has the front travel been reduced in recent times as bikes are now 29r?

Not really, if anything it's gone up. 100/120 is XC terrain. 20mm of fork height is about 1 degree difference in the head angle. I've a marker on mine and I've never used all the travel available to me doing red type standard trail rides but as Simon says, bigger tyres and wheels also absorb impact. If I was still using the Marin I have as a mtn bike, then the difference is night and day once you get onto gnarlier trails.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

But 100/120 was the XC fork length 15 years ago, and even went up to 140mm around 2010. Hence asking what the new geometry is if the fork lengths haven't changed or even reduced from what sounds like a peak.

 

[Crackle]

But 100/120 was the XC fork length 15 years ago, and even went up to 140mm around 2010. Hence asking what the new geometry is if the fork lengths haven't changed or even reduced from what sounds like a peak.

140 XC bikes? i don't recall that, I think they're more trail oriented than XC today. Things like the Ragley Mmmmbop have a 140 fork and 64 head angle. 15 years ago would have been more like 80/100 is my memory or even no suspension.

A lot of XC racers will ride 29ers with 100mm travel and a low head height and stack for racing.

When people talk about geometry changes it's not necessarily seat angle or even head angle, though it's more likely to be the latter but also head and stack height, bb height, top tube length to accommodate shorter stems and wider bars, frame clearance for bigger tyres, thru axles, curved stays for stiffer rear ends, those of the kind of things which have changed beyond recognition and transformed bike handling. Likewise, fork length probably hasn't changed that much but thicker stanchions, better air units, thru axles again have all transformed how a bike handles and reacts. Tyres are better in my experience and then there's tubeless which is a whole different ball game. so lots and lots of things which add up.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Yeah but my bike from 2004 has tubeless. Tubeless isn't a new thing for modern mtn bikes. Yes 140mm was seen on XC bikes. Mine has 130mm and that's from 2004. My tyres are 2.1" , just how wide have modern tyres gone now?

 

[Crackle]

Yeah, sure, a lot of things aren't new but they've evolved.

 

[ChrisEyles]

A low/long/slack bike is not an XC or bridleway bike though so of course they are going to be more orientated towards trail centres.

That's interesting - what's the main reason for this? Are they a bit less responsive, or is it more a case of being overbiked and deadening the trails?

I probably should have explained the background for my curiosity about this, and why I used the dreaded "geometry" word.

On road rides I switch between a 1960s ten speed (steep head tube angle, arse-up-head-down riding position) and a 1950s roadster (massively slack head angle and sit-up-and-beg riding position). The cornering dynamics on the two bikes feel quite different and I'm really curious if the difference between a modern and retro MTB would be as drastic.

Is the main reason modern MTBs are so much capable the improvements made in brakes/suspension etc or the changes to geometry?

Seems like the only way to answer is to have a go on one.

 

[Levo-Lon]

A modern slack DH bike

Check this out, fantastic


https://m.vitalmtb.com/community/Freeridewriter,16915/setup,39497



A modern trail bike also fantastic

https://www.santacruzbicycles.com/e...vitalmtb.com&utm_campaign=tallboy-launch-2020

 

[Levo-Lon]

Two links s above for @YukonBoy

 

[Drago]

Take it from a professional MTB trainer - it's all in the rider.

 

[Levo-Lon]

Take it from a professional MTB trainer - it's all in the rider.

Very true but a good bike will make the most of a novice..

 

[Jody]

That's interesting - what's the main reason for this? Are they a bit less responsive, or is it more a case of being overbiked and deadening the trails?
Is the main reason modern MTBs are so much capable the improvements made in brakes/suspension etc or the changes to geometry?

All of the above.

A longer bike will be more stable but the longer the bike the harder it is to manhandle round tight technical stuff.

The slacker fork angle adds stability and reduces the twitchiness of your steering.

Suspension has changed. Long gone are crap elastomer or spring forks with no or little damping. They can now be tuned for exactly how you want them to feel and react.

Brakes. We all know how they have changed. One finger on the lever can stand the bike up on its front wheel with almost no effort.

I think a lot of people can be classed as over biked as such. There are also those who use the heavier hitting bikes to compensate for their lack of technical ability. Sure they can numb the trail. You hit big rocks or roots and the bike stays planted. You can ride over some stuff and barely feel it.

Its all about what you want out of a ride

 

[Drago]

Very true but a good bike will make the most of a novice..

A good rider would perform well on any well maintained MTB.

A poor rider won't perform any better on the latest tool.

You either have the fundamental skills, or you don't, and this weeks plastic missile equipped with the very latest in meaningless acronyms won't bestow them unto you.

 

[Levo-Lon]

A good rider would perform well on any well maintained MTB.

A poor rider won't perform any better on the latest tool.

You either have the fundamental skills, or you don't, and this weeks plastic missile equipped with the very latest in meaningless acronyms won't bestow them unto you.

Not quite what i said but agree on a compleat novice.

I can relate to my point riding with my son in law.
My skill set is poor in comparison, but a light good bike improves my speed..

My wife is a rider who is terrified of falling off.
So her fabulous levo bike is a waste of money, as she will always struggle.
Plus side is she loves her ebike and this motivation device is worth the expense as she thinks it will keep her upright and gives her the best chance of this. Itis a fabulous bike as i found out at Cannock two weeks ago.
I had the best ride there ever hanging on to it, so on this score i disagree completely with your view.

 

[fossyant]

With MTB'ing it's all down to practice and learning. I've got much better since switching to MTB only after breaking my back. Was a steep learning curve. It took a while to tackle certain descent's locally - i.e. at first I'd get off at a rocky section with big drops, but the more you ride, the more you learn, and soon learn to negotiate the obstacles better. Most modern MTB's of a 'reasonable' specification are quite similar.

The suspension travel makes a difference depending upon what you plan to do. Most riders will be perfectly happy with any bike upto 140/150mm travel. More travel lets you hit bigger stuff, but that doesn't guarantee anything. XC bikes used to be mainly hard tails, but that's moved into full suspension as well.

My wife's 100mm FS XC bike is way more than she needs, but it's light, and it allows her to do some off road, that her hybrid can't. My trail bike is a fair bit heavier, but that's partly down to being more burly. If I rode both bikes, back to back, I doubt there would be much difference (other than her's is way too small for me).

Test ride a few, and see how you feel. I just grabbed a bargain when I got mine - I'd already researched it though.