I give you permission to say that.On topic JD, that bike is too small for you mate..
on the Ripley??? they are Light Bicycle or Nextie (cant remember) and they are greatSlightly off topic but how have you found the Reynolds carbon wheels.
Nope, which is most of the problem here. In my opinion XL sizes are almost always sized for the small end of XL (ie: around 6'1"-6'3"), so they just make the biggest size an arbitary from "6'1" to X'X"..." sizing that kinda screws really tall blokes like Big JD when the bike looks long but doesn't "fit" long.Is there an XXL Ripley?
on the Ripley??? they are Light Bicycle or Nextie (cant remember) and they are great
Look forward to it mate. Im not too concerned about it. Will try the setback post and if it doesnt fell right- I will sell it and probably get another Highball/ Chameleon. Looking at exotic german alloy frames but its just a bike.We need to meet up JD - quite a predicament.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
All of what you say is true.Just because a Process was mentioned previously, and is hyped, decided to do a little comparison, although I'm sure others have done their own...
My Genius XL has a reach of 470mm (on low BB setting) and ETT of 650mm, The new Process 134 has a ETT of 664 and reach of 510mm - so the combination of steep seat angle and slack head angle means that while the "reach" of the bike is 40mm longer, the actual length from headtube to seatpost is only 14mm more! Still longer but nowhere near what the "reach" figures seem to indicate. Given this I feel that maybe calling "reach", well, the "reach" is highly misleading. Certainly not enough to change a frame size based on the hype of longer reaches.
Throw into that that a slacker head angle brings your bars closer as your stack goes up, and that a steeper seat angle brings you closer to the bars relative to a slacker one - no one rides with the seatpost slammed and the bars below the head tube.. So effectively those geo figures shorten up way quicker than the "old" geometries which I imagine is why JD feels so weird seated on the XL frame vs the XXLs.
EDIT: Unsure if ETT measurements are taken from Actual seat angle or Effective seat angle?
surely an xc/trail/ all rounder shouldnt be based on the Enduro rigs.......................................All of what you say is true.
The new Geo has been pioneered by the Enduro category.
Enduro bikes prioritise descending.
Reach numbers are about descending.
Sent from my LG-H870DS using Tapatalk
For sure BigJD. An all rounder "trail" bike should have different Geo numbers... different enough to be noticeably better for climbing or possibly more comfortable (depending on individual body shape etc etc etc)surely an xc/trail/ all rounder shouldnt be based on the Enduro rigs.......................................
just saying- we arent all charging rock gardens and timed 20 minute descents.
But bikes with steep actual SA would feel more cramped in the seated position because the saddle ends up less rearward.
Yeah/nahh?
Trail/all-rounder/backcountry/downcountry/whatever will still benefit from the geo changes unless you're riding very tight/twisting trails - it just makes getting the right size less flexible than traditional geometry. If the new-geo bikes are too short, they'll feel cramped and it'll be hard to find/stay-in the weight balance sweet spot.surely an xc/trail/ all rounder shouldnt be based on the Enduro rigs.......................................
just saying- we arent all charging rock gardens and timed 20 minute descents.
For sure BigJD. An all rounder "trail" bike should have different Geo numbers... different enough to be noticeably better for climbing or possibly more comfortable (depending on individual body shape etc etc etc)
In the real world lots of us use Enduro bikes as "all rounders"... myself included.
Every time I finish a long climb I question my sanity!
But....
Without picking on our friend Petero, I respectfully felt he was mixing geometric apples with oranges if we're having a purely theoretical discussion about geo numbers.
... And another separate point I was thinking about regarding seat angles.
As an example, my Process has a steep effective SA, but the actual SA is slack.
This can be a good thing for 6'+ orang-utans like me. Because as the saddle moves up to the top position for climbing, the cockpit/ETT gets longer.
But bikes with steep actual SA would feel more cramped in the seated position because the saddle ends up less rearward.
Yeah/nahh?
Sent from my LG-H870DS using Tapatalk
New SC Hightower? I've noticed they've got appreciably bigger stack heights to some other bikes.First new bike or major upgrade in nearly 7 years so it’s a custom build.
I did a lot of spreadsheet work before pulling the trigger, I wanted something with a big reach but had a decently high stack height, there’s not a lot out there. I wasn’t too worried about the travel number so long as it pedaled well.