Let's chat about descending and handling

[Nefarious86]

Oook, are we going to stop and agree to disagree or will this be locked down and holidays handed out?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[Karvalo]

You can't shut up about it. Nothing it seems can ever prove you wrong.

All of the arguments you have used so far are provably wrong. Why can't you admit it?

Scott Gambler, slow handclap you can use Google, woopie.

Do you think that's some kind of insult? I should be embarrased about finding the facts that prove your wild ass guesses wrong?

My god do you even have eyes? I was watching the DH from Leogang yesterday and even the riders on 29ers are nearly bashing their knees on the bars when they were pedalling around sat down in the finish area. The geo is clearly different and not comparable other than in numbers it appears the MTBs might be bigger, but in real life it's not the case.

Do you have eyes? Did they see that the saddles were super low and far forwards when that was happening? Did they see that the stems are super short? Are you capable of figuring out that it therefore demonstrates absolutely nothing about the comparison size of the frames that we were talking about? The frames are bigger. The top tubes are longer - and not because the seattubes are slacker but because the reach numbers are longer. It's hilarious that you're too proud to admit you've screwed this one up.

By the way, why are you even talking about DH again, you said it was irrelevant and XC was what matters. Well, did you ever see Nino Schurter bashing his knees on the handlebar, 'cos I haven't. His bike's way bigger than your roadie as well, by the way.

[silvalis]

But anyway you're still totally wrong MTBs are smaller.

In what way are they smaller?

I'm getting the impression that OP is looking at the size of the diamond and not the size of the bike, or even the wheelbase or HTA.

[Karvalo]

I'm getting the impression that OP is looking at the size of the diamond and not the size of the bike, or even the wheelbase or HTA.

Apparently he's looking at the knee position of people riding with dropped seatposts

If he's going to argue that road bikes would benefit in pure handling terms from dropper seatposts then I'd actually agree with him, but it's got bugger all to do with choosing a frame size!

[Lewn777]

You can't shut up about it. Nothing it seems can ever prove you wrong.

All of the arguments you have used so far are provably wrong. Why can't you admit it?

Scott Gambler, slow handclap you can use Google, woopie.

Do you think that's some kind of insult? I should be embarrased about finding the facts that prove your wild ass guesses wrong?

My god do you even have eyes? I was watching the DH from Leogang yesterday and even the riders on 29ers are nearly bashing their knees on the bars when they were pedalling around sat down in the finish area. The geo is clearly different and not comparable other than in numbers it appears the MTBs might be bigger, but in real life it's not the case.

Do you have eyes? Did they see that the saddles were super low and far forwards when that was happening? Did they see that the stems are super short? Are you capable of figuring out that it therefore demonstrates absolutely nothing about the comparison size of the frames that we were talking about? The frames are bigger. The top tubes are longer - and not because the seattubes are slacker but because the reach numbers are longer. It's hilarious that you're too proud to admit you've screwed this one up.

By the way, why are you even talking about DH again, you said it was irrelevant and XC was what matters. Well, did you ever see Nino Schurter bashing his knees on the handlebar, 'cos I haven't. His bike's way bigger than your roadie as well, by the way.

MTB frames are at best a similar size and generally not massively bigger than road bikes like you seem to think. They're not even comparable anyway. Then stem lengths, seat post angles, head tube angles etc etc totally throw off the measurements. The geo seems bigger written down, but actually it isn't.

The wheelbase is bigger on DH bikes but that just because of slack HT angles. The effective TT is longer but that because you're running mega short stems the frame reach seems longer but that's just due running a storter stem again.

Then again seat tubes are shorter on MTBs.

You're comapring apples with oranges and it's a complete waste of time.

[Nefarious86]

Just for reference I was on an XL Epic WC and it still felt a tad small with a 110-10° stem yet I run a 130-10°...

I'd be stoked with the 2018 geo because I could drop 10mm of stem and gain some more control in the steep stuff.

The frames aren't comparable in any way shape or form, well except for the STA...

As for deleting posts and still arguing... Well that's childish at best, as is expecting Mods to micromanage every thread to your satisfaction or us allowing you to delete posts that challenge your narrative.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[Nefarious86]

On a clean, dry road surface, most people just aren’t aware of how far they can lean a bike.

Seeing this was an eye opener haha

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[TobinHatesYou]

Same.

[Djakninn]

On a clean, dry road surface, most people just aren’t aware of how far they can lean a bike.
[/quote]

I also think a lot of people just have something in their brain that instictively tells them that if you lean over that you naturally fall to the ground. If i look at the 20 or so motorbikes outside in the car park, i would say around 15 of them will have an inch of unused rubber either side of the tyre. Fast forward a few months and they will have a nice flat spot rendering their tyre square. There must also be something that instictively tells them that low is bad. You and Nefarious' pics are good as it shows good low COG in the turn, yet i see a lot of people in the drops when i'm out and about, then when they get to a turn decide to sit bolt upright and move to the hoods, which has a double negative of slowing them right down and also should the bike give out from under them gives them a further height to fall from before meeting the ground.

[TobinHatesYou]

You and Nefarious' pics are good as it shows good low COG in the turn

The road surface in Nefarious86's photo doesn't look particularly good either. And in mine, I'm taking an off-camber line.

[Karvalo]

MTB frames are at best a similar size

So, you were wrong?

They're not even comparable anyway.

So, you were wrong?

Then stem lengths, seat post angles, head tube angles etc etc totally throw off the measurements. The geo seems bigger written down, but actually it isn't.

Stem lengths have nothing to do with frame geo, and you made it very clear you were talking about frame geo only in your OP. As in downsizing frame and upsizing stem. The geo seems bigger written down because it is bigger. STA doesn't effect stack and reach, and when STA is comparable between road and MTB, MTBs are still way longer. The Scott Scale RC and Scott Addict RC both have 73.6 STAs, and the Scale TT is 5cm longer. An Epic HT and a Venge both have 74.0 STAs, and the Epic HT TT is 5.5cm longer. How do you explain that away?

The wheelbase is bigger on DH bikes but that just because of slack HT angles.

No, it's not just because of slack HT angles. That's the biggest part of it, because the wheelbase difference is massive, but without that they'd still be bigger. They have longer chainstays and they have longer reach measurements. How can I put this in a way you might understand; this means the front of the bike frame is physically further away from the back of the bike frame. The frame is bigger.

The effective TT is longer but that because you're running mega short stems the frame reach seems longer but that's just due running a storter stem again.

The frame reach doesn't seem longer, it is longer. The frame and the stem are two different things. And again, in your OP you recommended downsizing frame and upsizing stem because MTBs run small frames. What you have just said demonstrates that in the MTB world the exact opposite is true. Are you ready to drop this now?

Then again seat tubes are shorter on MTBs.

So you don't smash your nuts on the TT, and (these days) to fit long travel dropper posts. Are either relevant to road riders?

You're comapring apples with oranges and it's a complete waste of time.

So, seeing as your OP brought up the comparison and you've been arguing it ever since, you were wrong?

[Nefarious86]

You and Nefarious' pics are good as it shows good low COG in the turn

The road surface in Nefarious86's photo doesn't look particularly good either. And in mine, I'm taking an off-camber line.

It's a hairpin into a pinch, coarse chip seal and plenty of defects. #sendit



Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[Karvalo]

It's a hairpin into a pinch, coarse chip seal and plenty of defects. #sendit

Defects aside I think that kind of coarse surface is good for grip. Maybe harder to commit to though 'cos it really sucks if you fall on it

[Lewn777]

MTB frames are at best a similar size

So, you were wrong?

They're not even comparable anyway.

So, you were wrong?

Then stem lengths, seat post angles, head tube angles etc etc totally throw off the measurements. The geo seems bigger written down, but actually it isn't.

Stem lengths have nothing to do with frame geo, and you made it very clear you were talking about frame geo only in your OP. As in downsizing frame and upsizing stem. The geo seems bigger written down because it is bigger. STA doesn't effect stack and reach, and when STA is comparable between road and MTB, MTBs are still way longer. The Scott Scale RC and Scott Addict RC both have 73.6 STAs, and the Scale TT is 5cm longer. An Epic HT and a Venge both have 74.0 STAs, and the Epic HT TT is 5.5cm longer. How do you explain that away?

The wheelbase is bigger on DH bikes but that just because of slack HT angles.

No, it's not just because of slack HT angles. That's the biggest part of it, because the wheelbase difference is massive, but without that they'd still be bigger. They have longer chainstays and they have longer reach measurements. How can I put this in a way you might understand; this means the front of the bike frame is physically further away from the back of the bike frame. The frame is bigger.

The effective TT is longer but that because you're running mega short stems the frame reach seems longer but that's just due running a storter stem again.

The frame reach doesn't seem longer, it is longer. The frame and the stem are two different things. And again, in your OP you recommended downsizing frame and upsizing stem because MTBs run small frames. What you have just said demonstrates that in the MTB world the exact opposite is true. Are you ready to drop this now?

Then again seat tubes are shorter on MTBs.

So you don't smash your nuts on the TT, and (these days) to fit long travel dropper posts. Are either relevant to road riders?

You're comapring apples with oranges and it's a complete waste of time.

So, seeing as your OP brought up the comparison and you've been arguing it ever since, you were wrong?

Yawn. Were you saying something?

[Karvalo]

Yawn. Were you saying something?

Yes, that you have just tacitly admitted you were wrong about the point you've been arguing since your OP. Right?

And that you are still proveably clueless about MTB geometry if you think HTA is the only reason wheelbases are longer and STA is the only reason TTs are longer. Right?