Re: Re:
gradeAfailure":2bggevtz said:
Not to go off at a tangent, but current "modern" geometry has a steep seat angle and long reach to centre you in the bike for seated climbing, with a slack head angle and short stem/wide bars. My current FS has a longer wheelbase than most DH bikes, yet the saddle-to-bars distance is identical to my 90s-kona-geometry-inspired rigid steel Voodoo with its textbook 71/73degree angles..!
No, that's a very good point, which is why I try to clarify what I personally mean by "modern." It's not so universal anymore, the way it was in the 90s when all bikes were basically clones of one another.
Here in the states, a good illustration of the differences, by two of the innovators, might be Chromag vs. Canfield. Chromag (
http://www.chromagbikes.com/bikes/surface) subscribes to (pioneered?) the idea of having a steep seat tube angle to enhance seated climbing, while Canfield (
http://canfieldbrothers.com/frames/nimble-9) uses a shallow seat tube angle, to make long days in the saddle more comfortable, and to make the front end lighter. After that, they're both all about going downhill fast, with the seat dropped out of the way. Horses for courses a bit, which is a great thing, if you think about it!
Then there's this, discussion of "forward geometry" which I saw come up in a discussion in another forum recently (
http://www.peterverdone.com/forward-geometry/), which might be what you're describing: 90s XC fit, with a shallow headtube angle to shove the wheel way out front.
Certainly sounds like there's some merit to it, but there's no way in hades that I'm going back down that road ever again - having moved on, recognized my own unique physical proportions, finally accepted how poor of a match I was to the low-front-end road-racer riding position of 90s XC bikes, and seen how much more capable of a rider I am with a higher front end.
As I alluded to above, I think it's also important to remember that a particular model of bike is, more often than not, experienced in completely different ways depending on the frame and rider sizes. Most manufacturers STILL use the same size head tube for all of their frames in order to save money - failing to scale them up proportionally with the rest of the frame.
Even on a 90s NORBA bike, an average size rider on a medium bike probably had handlebars located around saddle height, while a tall guy on a large or XL frame had to make due with handlebars that were 6" or more below the saddle. One of the great things about early 29ers was that there were finally off-the-shelf bikes that fit tall guys for the first time. (obviously there are exceptions depending on individual proportions.)
I personally think that some of the push-back to shorter 27" wheels, and the adjustment to slacker head tube angles, is simply compensation for the fact that big wheels and longer-travel forks were getting too tall to fit medium/average size riders.
