Your bike is most likely slower than Ideal.

[crgildart]

CR, I got a Big Wheel in 1974 and have not stopped pedaling bikes since then.

.

Bigwheels had a very comfortable set with upright bars

 

[skibob]

CR, I got a Big Wheel in 1974 and have not stopped pedaling bikes since then.

Skibob, I agree with much of what you have said, but choosing words like 'precise' vs 'vague' when words like 'quick' vs 'stable' are less biased and, frankly, more helpful to folks trying to wrap their heads around one of Josh's threads.

Never thought they were loaded terms, In fact the only loaded term I thought I used was "twitchy" which I applied to steep HTA. Anyway, none of it means anything until we agree. Quick and stable are fine with me.

 

[Superbman]

Trail feedback is a debate like dampened skis. I like to feel the trail, even when its not nice (ironically, I like a dampened ski, go figure).

Technical Note: Joe Breeze (no "r") is the guy, Breezer is his bike. As for trends, well, yes, just like wide skis a few years ago, the trend is toward slacker geometry. But I think it will bounce back to a more moderate compromise, just like the renewed interest in narrower skis.

BTW, the "enduro" Breeze is talking about was 40 years ago and was just a product of deciding to take the same bikes and race them up the hill as well as down. He doesn't make an "enduro" or "downhill" bike. He makes the Supercell (XC) and Repack (All Mountain). His geometry is conservative, and consciously so. But the difference between his bikes and other manufacturers is just a couple of degrees. He makes bikes for recreational riders, not racers. Nobody would race one of his bikes in other than the most amateur of races. Too heavy, and no factory support.

Just as there is nothing wrong with wide skis, there is nothing wrong with slacker geometry. But both are trends that, after flirting with extremes, are (or will) moderate at some point. Fat skis are still made. But more effort is going into making skinnier skis better too. At the end of the day, we ride what we like. His bikes are popular with the people who buy them. I don't think slack geometry will disappear. It will just become less ubiquitous. But its much earlier on the curve. Call it 2009 in fat ski terms.

You know, joe is still making bikes....and the ones he's designing now are as new school as an online university:
http://www.breezerbikes.com/bikes/specs/repack-275-team-

 

[skibob]

You know, joe is still making bikes....and the ones he's designing now are as new school as an online university:
http://www.breezerbikes.com/bikes/specs/repack-275-team-

Yep. I've got the XC: http://www.breezerbikes.com/bikes/specs/supercell-29-pro-

Great bike. As per his interview, he views them as a little more conservative than most in that his HTA's are steeper than similar. The Repack you linked, which I've ridden is an "all mountain" bike at 68* HTA. They are a great ride from the guy who literally built the first mountain bikes.

 

[skibob]

All of this discussion got me thinking about all of this. Here is a great article on this trend, written by some of the top designers of FS mountain bikes:

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/1-question-how-long-low-and-slack-2016.html

The perspectives and enthusiasm for the "slackening" trend vary, so its nice to get the multiple perspectives.

I think this quote from the maker of Mondraker sums it up nicely:

"But how far can you push things? Is a 65-degree head angle too slack and a 13" BB too low for a trail bike? It just depends on the bike, the rear suspension design, its intended use, plus a whole host of other factors that make modern geometry more complicated than simply adopting a longer, lower and slacker approach."

 

[tball]

Heck the entire top 5 today's in XC race was running droppers as well. No point in a fixxed post from a performance stand point anymore.

So, back to your OP... How many in the top 5 of the XC race were on 27.5+ bikes?

I very much see the point of a dropper for XC, but don't buy 27.5 being faster.

 

[Superbman]

Yep. I've got the XC: http://www.breezerbikes.com/bikes/specs/supercell-29-pro-

Great bike. As per his interview, he views them as a little more conservative than most in that his HTA's are steeper than similar. The Repack you linked, which I've ridden is an "all mountain" bike at 68* HTA. They are a great ride from the guy who literally built the first mountain bikes.

Yeah, he's gone a little on the steeper side (though hardly steep), though this bike is rocking 160mm of front and rear travel, supershort stem with super wide bars, low BB, 27.5 tubeless ready rims, with 2.5/ 2.4 tires, full 1x11, BB92, thru-axle everything, Dropper Post, and proprietary one off suspension with name designer, the list goes on-everything on that bike herald's the last 5 years of innovation (and i'll bet if he's still making bikes in two years he'll put one out with the wider hub spacing....once that settles, of course).

So, back to your OP... How many in the top 5 of the XC race were on 27.5+ bikes?

I very much see the point of a dropper for XC, but don't buy 27.5 being faster.

That's a pretty good point, none of the competitive UCI divisions have seen any pros adopting a plus or fat tire (well, except those Iditarod style races, of course). I doubt you'll ever see them in world cup pro XC, but then again, so few of those courses resemble what people actually ride.

I wonder if Enduro added a bigger penalty for climbing slow, or more serious timed technical climbs on serious trails if we'd see an uptick in plus bike tires. I've found that is on uphill or flattish chundery, chunky, technical trails that the big tires pay the biggest dividends.

Anyone watching the World Cup DH in Scotland this weekend?? Should be awesome!

 

[skibob]

Yeah, he's gone a little on the steeper side (though hardly steep), though this bike is rocking 160mm of front and rear travel, supershort stem with super wide bars, low BB, 27.5 tubeless ready rims, with 2.5/ 2.4 tires, full 1x11, BB92, thru-axle everything, Dropper Post, and proprietary one off suspension with name designer, the list goes on-everything on that bike herald's the last 5 years of innovation (and i'll bet if he's still making bikes in two years he'll put one out with the wider hub spacing....once that settles, of course).

I got to wondering, what was the HTA of Breezer1? Ironically, the first mountain bikes were modeled after old Schwinn "paperboys" that early guys like Breeze, Ritchey, and Fisher customized and rode on Repack. And those old Schwinns, for whatever reason, had fairly slack head tubes. So the first Breezers did too. 67*. Then MTB got progressively steeper, although never as steep as road bikes of course. And then got slacker. This details some of the early history, specifically for design nerds:

http://www.peterverdone.com/breezer-series-2-1980-81/

 

[Josh Matta]

So, back to your OP... How many in the top 5 of the XC race were on 27.5+ bikes?

I very much see the point of a dropper for XC, but don't buy 27.5 being faster.

XC rider takes years to change due to tradition, they do no actual testing of new products to see whats faster.

I am convinced 27.5 is slower as well, but 27.5+ compared to 29er, I think the 27.5 plus will be faster all most all the time.

 

[Erik Timmerman]

Here's the thing with bikes (and most other things too). You can't take just one number in isolation to determine it's characteristics. Everything matters. The head angle alone is not the bike. Neither is wheelbase, seat-tube length (remember seat tube length? That used to be how we knew what size bike we were on). Read this article. Very interesting.

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/behind-the-bike-developing-the-xxl-santa-cruz-v10-2016.html

 

[scott43]

I thought it interesting that there are some convertible 27.5/29 bikes out there..

 

[Mike Thomas]

I thought it interesting that there are some convertible 27.5/29 bikes out there..

There are 27.5+ bikes that convert to 29, since the wheel diameter is more or less the same. 27.5 to 29 would do some funny things to geometry, primarily bb height. I'm not saying they aren't out there, but who makes one? Ibis does a 27.5 to 27.5+ bike, the new Mojo 3, but the max + size tire for them is 2.8 and the 'normal' is 2.5, so not a big difference.

 

[skibob]

There are 27.5+ bikes that convert to 29, since the wheel diameter is more or less the same. 27.5 to 29 would do some funny things to geometry, primarily bb height. I'm not saying they aren't out there, but who makes one? Ibis does a 27.5 to 27.5+ bike, the new Mojo 3, but the max + size tire for them is 2.8 and the 'normal' is 2.5, so not a big difference.

Or the famous (infamous? notorious?) "69er". New forks and a 29" wheel for a 26" bike. Makes HTA slacker and bb a little higher, among other subtle changes. The theory is the 29 rolls easier, the 26 starts quicker. In reality, I don't know anybody who has stuck with one as their DD.

 

[skibob]

There are also lists around of 26" bikes that will take 27.5" tires/wheels. A surprising number of them. If you are a tinkerer, it could be a fun project for a recreational bike. Raises the bottom bracket, which was too low on some of the old 26ers anyway. Doesn't change the HTA or other geometry if you aren't changing the forks. If you update the forks to true 27.5 forks, it will slacken, which, again, with some of the old 26ers is probably a good thing. The big problem with this is that 27.5 wheels and tires (and forks) are still fairly expensive. If you are going to spend the money, you might be better off with a new bike.

 

[Philpug]

I just spent a little time on a Santa Cruz Blur TRc 27.5 and I was surprised how much different it was than my Giant Trance. First of all it iwas a bit of an unfair comparision in components, the Blur was full XTR with a 2x11 set up and my Trance is a mix of SLX & XT with a more traditional 3x10 and many more miles on it. Both bikes are medium is size. The feel between both bikes was dramatically different, the Giant's medium frame felt much longer and relaxed than the Santa Cruz which felt shorter and much more compact and upright. I feel I would have been happier with the Blur in a large. While I only got to try it on some moderate double track I felt that is would be a hoot in tight technical terrain but not nearly as comfortable climbing or decending. Suspension felt significantly different than my Giant and the most noticable difference was the rake of the fork, it felt mich steeper than my Trance.

 

[skibob]

Funny, today I visited a forum dedicated to my bike (Breezer Supercell) I hadn't been to for awhile. Sure enough, somebody did the 29 to 27.5+ conversion:

Says he likes it, not more specific than that.

 

[Josh Matta]

@Philpug sizes are meaningless in bikes. measurements are what matter. Prior to the newest Bronson and 5010 and now tall boy/high tower all Santa Cruz were a little short.

Whats funny is that Diane rides a M Trance now she's only 5'5. IMO Phil even on new Trances you should be on large. Giant is little behind the time though and the seat tubes are too long for their size IMO.

 

[Philpug]

@Philpug sizes are meaningless in bikes. measurements are what matter. Prior to the newest Bronson and 5010 and now tall boy/high tower all Santa Cruz were a little short.

Whats funny is that Diane rides a M Trance now she's only 5'5. IMO Phil even on new Trances you should be on large. Giant is little behind the time though and the seat tubes are too long for their size IMO.

It's kinds like ski boots in that sense. We have a Klein Attitude in a small which feels like some large. If I was going out looking at bikes now, I would have a complete open mind to size and suspension.

 

[Josh Matta]

how long is stem on your klien? No way I could fit a stock L trance but no way I would want a M with a 100mm stem either.

 

[Philpug]

how long is stem on your klien? No way I could fit a stock L trance but no way I would want a M with a 100mm stem either.

Not sure, about 100mm but Klein hard tails are inherently long.