When The Numbers Seem To Come Together

The Fezzari Shafer (Image courtesy of Fezzari Bikes)

 One thing about bicycles is that things don't stay the same for very long. Changes come and go, but you can count on fashion and design to mold our bicycles into different directions all the time. 

It used to be that things were settled. The geometry was what it was. You bought a frame and fork because it had a certain frame tubing, or because a certain guy brazed it together. Not because it had a 'long, low, slack' geo, or because it had 'progressive geometry', or because it had a certain head angle. 

But all those things and more are constantly in flux now as designers try new things and connect buzz-words to their recipe for geometry. Marketers get a hold of this and run with it, then the media reinforces this with reviews and opinions saying that you simply cannot ride anymore unless you have such-and-such geometry. 

Well, as we know, sometimes this goes a little too far. 

I'm not saying what I like is 'the right geometry' for gravel riding, but historically speaking, there have been certain things done which were proven concepts that weren't driven by marketing so much as they were by what actually works for most folks. I have done research and delved into the history enough to have a basic understanding of some of these concepts and I have had enough experience riding lots of different bicycles to have formed my own opinion. Which, if you didn't catch that, is my opinion. You will have to figure things out for yourself, because I may not be right for you. Close? Maybe, but not 'right', whatever that may mean to you. 

So, when I see something put out there that dances around the same circle as my mind does with geometry numbers, I get excited. Again- not for anyone else, necessarily, but for myself. So, when I saw the press release for the Fezzari Shafer, I was pleased to find out that Fezzari hits on several things I have had in mind for a gravel bike for years. Things I've wanted to see done since the late 00's, and you folks that have read this blog for a long time know that this is true. 

The Shafer's geometry table courtesy of Fezzari Bikes.

So, what the heck did Fezzari do? Well, they dumped the bottom bracket drop to 77mm. Yes! I've always thought that somewhere around 75mm was pretty good, and I've wanted to try something a bit deeper, and there ya go. 77mm. Nice! 

Then Fezzari slackened out the head tube angle to a 68.5° figure and matched that up with a 50mm fork offset. Bold! Pretty 'out there' for a gravel bike. Only the Evil Bikes Chamois Hangar goes beyond the bottom bracket drop and head angles here, and honestly, I think they crossed a line with that bike. 

Then Fezzari went and did that three in the triangle bottle mount thing with fork mounts as well, which I absolutely love. Internally routed cables for everything? Meh! It is what it is, and yes- easily cleaned. I get it. But I am a mechanic too, so..... On that note, a threaded bottom bracket! Rejoicing here! Plus, all of that and a reasonable price for a frame and fork at about a grand less than that Evil Bikes model. 

So, what did they get wrong? I would point to that fork offset at 50mm. I would have liked to have seen that increased a bit. Maybe 53mm? maybe even 55mm. But at 50mm I would still give that a try. My thoughts being that on a long, slow grind of a climb with looser gravel, that makes the mechanical trail figure a bit much to hold steady. But yeah, everything else there looks pretty spot on, so a slightly less than inspiring trail figure may not be all that bad a deal. 

So, here's a great example of where fork trail in particular was a big surprise for me. It was at Bootleg Canyon for an Interbike Outdoor Demo. Mike Curiak had been working over Devin Lenz of Lenz Sport Bikes to make a long travel 29"er with certain aspects of geometry that were- at that time- considered to be the death of handling for 29"ers. Mike had dialed me up to the existence of the bike, and asked me to demo it at Bootleg Canyon, but would not tell me anything about the geometry until after my ride. 

Well, needless to say the bike handled really well and the geometry was whack for the day in regards to what we all thought was 'right' for a 29"er. The trail figure, in particular, was off the charts for a 29"er, as in the three digit range! Far higher than anything I would have thought would have worked on a climb, but it did. 

And so I say that to point out that Fezzari may have it right and what the heck do I know? Maybe someday I can swing a leg over this new fangled rig and find out.

When The Numbers Seem To Come Together

The Fezzari Shafer (Image courtesy of Fezzari Bikes)

 One thing about bicycles is that things don't stay the same for very long. Changes come and go, but you can count on fashion and design to mold our bicycles into different directions all the time. 

It used to be that things were settled. The geometry was what it was. You bought a frame and fork because it had a certain frame tubing, or because a certain guy brazed it together. Not because it had a 'long, low, slack' geo, or because it had 'progressive geometry', or because it had a certain head angle. 

But all those things and more are constantly in flux now as designers try new things and connect buzz-words to their recipe for geometry. Marketers get a hold of this and run with it, then the media reinforces this with reviews and opinions saying that you simply cannot ride anymore unless you have such-and-such geometry. 

Well, as we know, sometimes this goes a little too far. 

I'm not saying what I like is 'the right geometry' for gravel riding, but historically speaking, there have been certain things done which were proven concepts that weren't driven by marketing so much as they were by what actually works for most folks. I have done research and delved into the history enough to have a basic understanding of some of these concepts and I have had enough experience riding lots of different bicycles to have formed my own opinion. Which, if you didn't catch that, is my opinion. You will have to figure things out for yourself, because I may not be right for you. Close? Maybe, but not 'right', whatever that may mean to you. 

So, when I see something put out there that dances around the same circle as my mind does with geometry numbers, I get excited. Again- not for anyone else, necessarily, but for myself. So, when I saw the press release for the Fezzari Shafer, I was pleased to find out that Fezzari hits on several things I have had in mind for a gravel bike for years. Things I've wanted to see done since the late 00's, and you folks that have read this blog for a long time know that this is true. 

The Shafer's geometry table courtesy of Fezzari Bikes.

So, what the heck did Fezzari do? Well, they dumped the bottom bracket drop to 77mm. Yes! I've always thought that somewhere around 75mm was pretty good, and I've wanted to try something a bit deeper, and there ya go. 77mm. Nice! 

Then Fezzari slackened out the head tube angle to a 68.5° figure and matched that up with a 50mm fork offset. Bold! Pretty 'out there' for a gravel bike. Only the Evil Bikes Chamois Hangar goes beyond the bottom bracket drop and head angles here, and honestly, I think they crossed a line with that bike. 

Then Fezzari went and did that three in the triangle bottle mount thing with fork mounts as well, which I absolutely love. Internally routed cables for everything? Meh! It is what it is, and yes- easily cleaned. I get it. But I am a mechanic too, so..... On that note, a threaded bottom bracket! Rejoicing here! Plus, all of that and a reasonable price for a frame and fork at about a grand less than that Evil Bikes model. 

So, what did they get wrong? I would point to that fork offset at 50mm. I would have liked to have seen that increased a bit. Maybe 53mm? maybe even 55mm. But at 50mm I would still give that a try. My thoughts being that on a long, slow grind of a climb with looser gravel, that makes the mechanical trail figure a bit much to hold steady. But yeah, everything else there looks pretty spot on, so a slightly less than inspiring trail figure may not be all that bad a deal. 

So, here's a great example of where fork trail in particular was a big surprise for me. It was at Bootleg Canyon for an Interbike Outdoor Demo. Mike Curiak had been working over Devin Lenz of Lenz Sport Bikes to make a long travel 29"er with certain aspects of geometry that were- at that time- considered to be the death of handling for 29"ers. Mike had dialed me up to the existence of the bike, and asked me to demo it at Bootleg Canyon, but would not tell me anything about the geometry until after my ride. 

Well, needless to say the bike handled really well and the geometry was whack for the day in regards to what we all thought was 'right' for a 29"er. The trail figure, in particular, was off the charts for a 29"er, as in the three digit range! Far higher than anything I would have thought would have worked on a climb, but it did. 

And so I say that to point out that Fezzari may have it right and what the heck do I know? Maybe someday I can swing a leg over this new fangled rig and find out.

Could The Fargo Gen 1 Be Replaced? - Part 2

Black Mountain Cycles La Cabra- Unobtanium until further notice.

Last Thursday I posted a thought piece concerning choices for replacement of the Gen I Fargo- (as if!)- and I suggested two possibilities. Well, you dear readers sent in a bunch of comments, and as always, instead of answering in the comments where pretty much most folks will never look, I decided there was enough to warrant a "Part 2" on this subject. I will address each point brought up briefly, and in no particular order.

Concerning Kona's Steel: One comment I got which I thought was extremely interesting was the thought that Kona had done their best frame/fork work on their first generation Sutra LTD's and then things got progressively worse in terms of frame ride quality and steel choices. This can be a really complex subject, so I am just going to breeze through a few thoughts, because I could write a few posts about steel frames alone here. (And I probably have over the 15 years of this blog, come to think of it)

Steel frames, in general, are not well understood. There is a fair amount of "cork sniffery" when it comes to steel: "Reynolds is best! No! Columbus! Bzzzzt! Wrong!The best is Tange Prestige!" On and on........

The reality of 4130 CRMo and its variants is that there are so many butted profiles available that they are too hard to list. Steel tubing has been around in one form or another since the mid-19th Century and bicycles were made of the stuff since almost the beginning of the two wheeler. Some companies have made a lot of hay in regard to fans and claims of certain magical qualities. The thing is, if you know your way around designing a frame, you can source tubing that - if constructed correctly- would kill the ride feel of any name brand frame tubing. It happens all the time. But if- say, True Temper is your jam, well then......you go! I'm just saying that no one famous name tubing brand has anything over any good, butted, well put together frame. Even production frames can ride better than custom ones do if things are done right/wrong.

The Singular Gryphon from around 2009. It rode GREAT, but had low versatility

Finally, over the past 15 years, certain required tests for the sale of frames world-wide has pretty much killed the ride quality of steel frames now compared to 'then'. Take the El Mariachi. When the '07'to '09 design was discontinued, Salsa Cycles went to a new tubing for the El Mar. The result was a stiffer, more lifeless ride. Same with the Fargo. Even other companies steel frames were beefed up to pass testing and as a result, ended up losing that magical ride feel. So, it makes sense to me that "first efforts" in steel frames don't measure up to later model ones since this process seems to still be in effect where steel frames are being over-built to pass arbitrary testing protocols.

Suspension Correction vs Stem Spacers, Long Head Tubes, and High Rise Stems: You need to get somewhere and you have two ways to do it- One route works, and so does the other, but there are certain differences to consider which may influence why that you take one over the other. Scenery, times, stress levels, construction, etc. Well, how you do your fork/head tube/stem set up for a bike is pretty much the same deal.

Long head tube/short stack/low rise stem, or how about a short fork, short head tube, a really high rise stem, and maybe quite a few spacers? Both bikes could have exactly the same handle bar position in space. It's how you get there, and what matters about that, which matters to any individual rider. Some reasons for one against the other may have to do with aesthetics. Personally, I think a suspension corrected rigid fork, which would be the same length as a 100mm travel suspension fork, (corrected length to match a suspension fork's axle to crown height, make sense?), looks goofy, unless you actually use a suspension fork there from time to time. Others may have no issues with that look. But also- consider that this longer than usual fork on a MTB has to pass those MTB tests. That means that all that tubing length that could give you an awesome ride now has been beefed up to pass a test and rides like a dead piece of wood compared to a shorter, rigid fork like the Gryphon, shown above, which probably had the liveliest, best riding, (and weakest), rigid fork I have ridden.

Kinda short fork, short head tube, tall stem. Just one way to get there.

So, it's a little more than what you are seeing. Those longer rigid forks come with compromises. Longer head tubes have longer steer tubes, of course, so those tubes, especially if they are straight gauge, flex more and feel smoother. Shorter head tubes with short steer tubes have a stiffer feel. Carbon forks? Well, that's another factor on top of all the rest.

Fork Trail & Wheel Flop: Someone asked about the Kona Sutra and its 69.5° head tube angle and 55mm offset fork in regard to handling. Well, it depends upon the tire you use. Bigger volume 700c tires will increase trail, but with a 45mm gravel tire, the trail is in the 70's, which isn't crazy. Even with a 55mm tire, it is only 80mm. I wouldn't fret about it........

V/O Piolet: I've looked at this bike a lot. Someone said they replaced their Gen I Fargo with one. Nice bike- lateral move. Doesn't really do anything different for me over what I've got already.

Mone El Continante: Another bike I've drooled over. Stunning rig. Probably a cool bike. 29+ though and I'm not real sure about the sliding frame bits. That looks like a part begging to seize up and/or make noises. One man operation..... Meh. Too many what-ifs there.

Black Mountain Cycles LaCabra: One of you called it "the elephant in the room", which made me laugh out loud. Look......it isn't currently a bike you can even get. But let's say that Mike Varley gets it done and brings these in. Would that bike be a bike I could replace a Fargo Gen I with? Certainly, it very well could do just that. I've already said I'd like one.

But with things going the way that they are, who knows? I don't. Mike may not even know. Everything is different now, so the LaCabra may end up being a pipe dream, or I may end up with one next year. If I do- I will set it up with 650B X 2.8" tires and run with that first. As I stated back in early April, this LaCabra would be the fat, 650B bike and my rigid MTB. My current Fargo would be the 700c option.

And that's that for this subject. Thanks for all the comments!

Could The Fargo Gen 1 Be Replaced? - Part 2

Black Mountain Cycles La Cabra- Unobtanium until further notice.

Last Thursday I posted a thought piece concerning choices for replacement of the Gen I Fargo- (as if!)- and I suggested two possibilities. Well, you dear readers sent in a bunch of comments, and as always, instead of answering in the comments where pretty much most folks will never look, I decided there was enough to warrant a "Part 2" on this subject. I will address each point brought up briefly, and in no particular order.

Concerning Kona's Steel: One comment I got which I thought was extremely interesting was the thought that Kona had done their best frame/fork work on their first generation Sutra LTD's and then things got progressively worse in terms of frame ride quality and steel choices. This can be a really complex subject, so I am just going to breeze through a few thoughts, because I could write a few posts about steel frames alone here. (And I probably have over the 15 years of this blog, come to think of it)

Steel frames, in general, are not well understood. There is a fair amount of "cork sniffery" when it comes to steel: "Reynolds is best! No! Columbus! Bzzzzt! Wrong!The best is Tange Prestige!" On and on........

The reality of 4130 CRMo and its variants is that there are so many butted profiles available that they are too hard to list. Steel tubing has been around in one form or another since the mid-19th Century and bicycles were made of the stuff since almost the beginning of the two wheeler. Some companies have made a lot of hay in regard to fans and claims of certain magical qualities. The thing is, if you know your way around designing a frame, you can source tubing that - if constructed correctly- would kill the ride feel of any name brand frame tubing. It happens all the time. But if- say, True Temper is your jam, well then......you go! I'm just saying that no one famous name tubing brand has anything over any good, butted, well put together frame. Even production frames can ride better than custom ones do if things are done right/wrong.

The Singular Gryphon from around 2009. It rode GREAT, but had low versatility

Finally, over the past 15 years, certain required tests for the sale of frames world-wide has pretty much killed the ride quality of steel frames now compared to 'then'. Take the El Mariachi. When the '07'to '09 design was discontinued, Salsa Cycles went to a new tubing for the El Mar. The result was a stiffer, more lifeless ride. Same with the Fargo. Even other companies steel frames were beefed up to pass testing and as a result, ended up losing that magical ride feel. So, it makes sense to me that "first efforts" in steel frames don't measure up to later model ones since this process seems to still be in effect where steel frames are being over-built to pass arbitrary testing protocols.

Suspension Correction vs Stem Spacers, Long Head Tubes, and High Rise Stems: You need to get somewhere and you have two ways to do it- One route works, and so does the other, but there are certain differences to consider which may influence why that you take one over the other. Scenery, times, stress levels, construction, etc. Well, how you do your fork/head tube/stem set up for a bike is pretty much the same deal.

Long head tube/short stack/low rise stem, or how about a short fork, short head tube, a really high rise stem, and maybe quite a few spacers? Both bikes could have exactly the same handle bar position in space. It's how you get there, and what matters about that, which matters to any individual rider. Some reasons for one against the other may have to do with aesthetics. Personally, I think a suspension corrected rigid fork, which would be the same length as a 100mm travel suspension fork, (corrected length to match a suspension fork's axle to crown height, make sense?), looks goofy, unless you actually use a suspension fork there from time to time. Others may have no issues with that look. But also- consider that this longer than usual fork on a MTB has to pass those MTB tests. That means that all that tubing length that could give you an awesome ride now has been beefed up to pass a test and rides like a dead piece of wood compared to a shorter, rigid fork like the Gryphon, shown above, which probably had the liveliest, best riding, (and weakest), rigid fork I have ridden.

Kinda short fork, short head tube, tall stem. Just one way to get there.

So, it's a little more than what you are seeing. Those longer rigid forks come with compromises. Longer head tubes have longer steer tubes, of course, so those tubes, especially if they are straight gauge, flex more and feel smoother. Shorter head tubes with short steer tubes have a stiffer feel. Carbon forks? Well, that's another factor on top of all the rest.

Fork Trail & Wheel Flop: Someone asked about the Kona Sutra and its 69.5° head tube angle and 55mm offset fork in regard to handling. Well, it depends upon the tire you use. Bigger volume 700c tires will increase trail, but with a 45mm gravel tire, the trail is in the 70's, which isn't crazy. Even with a 55mm tire, it is only 80mm. I wouldn't fret about it........

V/O Piolet: I've looked at this bike a lot. Someone said they replaced their Gen I Fargo with one. Nice bike- lateral move. Doesn't really do anything different for me over what I've got already.

Mone El Continante: Another bike I've drooled over. Stunning rig. Probably a cool bike. 29+ though and I'm not real sure about the sliding frame bits. That looks like a part begging to seize up and/or make noises. One man operation..... Meh. Too many what-ifs there.

Black Mountain Cycles LaCabra: One of you called it "the elephant in the room", which made me laugh out loud. Look......it isn't currently a bike you can even get. But let's say that Mike Varley gets it done and brings these in. Would that bike be a bike I could replace a Fargo Gen I with? Certainly, it very well could do just that. I've already said I'd like one.

But with things going the way that they are, who knows? I don't. Mike may not even know. Everything is different now, so the LaCabra may end up being a pipe dream, or I may end up with one next year. If I do- I will set it up with 650B X 2.8" tires and run with that first. As I stated back in early April, this LaCabra would be the fat, 650B bike and my rigid MTB. My current Fargo would be the 700c option.

And that's that for this subject. Thanks for all the comments!

29"er Geometry: Tuning Forks

Just over a year ago I posted this missive on 29"er Geometry. In that post I went back over where 29"er geometry had been, where it was, and where it looked to be going. My final conclusion then , (and still is), was that there is "No School" geometry these days for 29"ers. There just isn't a coalescing of thought on what the numbers should be like for 29"ers  today like there was 25 years ago with 26"er hard tail mountain bikes.

I've had several forks on this bike...

So, what we have today is the ability to change the front end geometry, and thus- the over-all handling characteristics of our 29"ers. This is an intimidating thought for a lot of mountain bikers out there. The geometry terms and how they work are confusing to many, and downright misunderstood by several folks.

But it doesn't have to be this way.

First things first- The Human species is a highly adaptable one, and the power of our brains to quickly learn and master new inputs and tasks is not to be underestimated. A rider can ride many variations of geometry successfully on many different types of terrain. The thing is, you have to "want to", and that may be influenced by preferences and perceptions to a high degree.

So take that all into mind while reading this post. Nothing I put forth here is going to reveal "the perfect geometry for 29"ers", nor should it. That said, I hope there is something you can draw from this to make your own considered judgments on what might be "right:" for your 29"er. This post will strive to show how you could "tune" your handling with simple fork swaps.

This is something I have done over the years with one of my bikes in particular: the OS Bikes Blackbuck 29"er single speed hard tail.

....like this rigid Willits W.O.W. fork.

In 2008 I ran eight different forks with axle to crown measurements from 420mm to 510mm and offsets from 38mm to 51mm all on this one bike to gauge the effects of what front end geometry did to handling.

Head angle, bottom bracket height, and seat tube angle all changed with each fork, and I carefully measured each change to make sure I adjusted my cockpit to be as close to the same with each fork that I could. Then I tested each set up on various trails in the local area.

I posted my findings which maybe shocked some, and puzzled others. Basically what I said to start out here is the conclusion, but here are a few details for you to consider here. The terminology has to be understood first and foremost.

• "Quicker handling" is basically steering that is less stable. The extreme of this would be a bike one has to really concentrate on to keep on trail, or you crash. Most folks want "quicker" to equal "easier to steer", but that can get confused with "stability", so be careful!
• "Slower handling" is- you guessed it- more stable geometry. Essentially a bike that is so easy to ride, you can track stand it easily, and/or ride no handed over rough ground without the bike bouncing off line. Geometry can play into this, but so can wheel weight, rider weight distribution, and even tire pressures. "Slow" handling bikes tend to also be a chore to corner in tighter trails or switchbacks.
• "Trail" is a result of a formula that takes into account the head angle, fork offset, and wheel diameter of a bicycle. A higher figure, (which is usually expressed in millimeters for bicycles), will indicate a front end geometry that is more stable, (slower), and a lower figure for trail would indicate the opposite, (quicker handling). You may have heard some folks in the rando world that will talk about "low trail forks" for better front end loading capabilities, and this is what they are referring to.  Mountain bikes tend to have higher trail figures for stability, and front end loads are not a concern here. 
• "Axle to Crown" is a measurement from the center line of your front wheel axle to the base of the crown race on the fork. It is useful for adjusting the head angle of your frame without modifying the frame. For instance, you could use a fork on your 29"er that had anywhere from 420mm axle to crown to over 500mm and effect head angle changes of up to 3°-4°, which has a big effect on your Trail figure.
• "Offset", or more correctly "Fork Offset", (which some refer to as "rake", which I liken to a gardening tool, but whatever...), is the distance the front axle is "offset" forward from the center line drawn through your steer tube to the ground. Where the axle is forward of this axis is measured as offset, but more here equals less. Yes- your front axle looks as if it is in front of your steer tube, but trust me- where the rubber meets the trail, that contact point is behind the center line of your steer tube if you draw a line straight down from the axle to the ground and compare the two points.  More offset = less stable Trail figures. So, if you push the axle further away from the steer tube center line, the tire contact point will get closer to the intersection of the steer tube axis with the ground equaling less Trail. (Of course, head angle and wheel diameter may negate this or enhance it.) Having a hard time visualizing this? Think of a shopping cart wheel. The axis where it pivots is your steer tube, the wheel's contact patch is behind that. Now tilt the axis, which is normally vertical, to be more like a bicycle head angle. See it now?

Okay- that's enough for one post. In the meantime, go knock yerself out playing with this Bicycle Trail Calculator . I'll come back again with another edition of "29"er Geometry: Tuning Forks" soon.

29"er Geometry: Tuning Forks

Just over a year ago I posted this missive on 29"er Geometry. In that post I went back over where 29"er geometry had been, where it was, and where it looked to be going. My final conclusion then , (and still is), was that there is "No School" geometry these days for 29"ers. There just isn't a coalescing of thought on what the numbers should be like for 29"ers  today like there was 25 years ago with 26"er hard tail mountain bikes.

I've had several forks on this bike...

So, what we have today is the ability to change the front end geometry, and thus- the over-all handling characteristics of our 29"ers. This is an intimidating thought for a lot of mountain bikers out there. The geometry terms and how they work are confusing to many, and downright misunderstood by several folks.

But it doesn't have to be this way.

First things first- The Human species is a highly adaptable one, and the power of our brains to quickly learn and master new inputs and tasks is not to be underestimated. A rider can ride many variations of geometry successfully on many different types of terrain. The thing is, you have to "want to", and that may be influenced by preferences and perceptions to a high degree.

So take that all into mind while reading this post. Nothing I put forth here is going to reveal "the perfect geometry for 29"ers", nor should it. That said, I hope there is something you can draw from this to make your own considered judgments on what might be "right:" for your 29"er. This post will strive to show how you could "tune" your handling with simple fork swaps.

This is something I have done over the years with one of my bikes in particular: the OS Bikes Blackbuck 29"er single speed hard tail.

....like this rigid Willits W.O.W. fork.

In 2008 I ran eight different forks with axle to crown measurements from 420mm to 510mm and offsets from 38mm to 51mm all on this one bike to gauge the effects of what front end geometry did to handling.

Head angle, bottom bracket height, and seat tube angle all changed with each fork, and I carefully measured each change to make sure I adjusted my cockpit to be as close to the same with each fork that I could. Then I tested each set up on various trails in the local area.

I posted my findings which maybe shocked some, and puzzled others. Basically what I said to start out here is the conclusion, but here are a few details for you to consider here. The terminology has to be understood first and foremost.

• "Quicker handling" is basically steering that is less stable. The extreme of this would be a bike one has to really concentrate on to keep on trail, or you crash. Most folks want "quicker" to equal "easier to steer", but that can get confused with "stability", so be careful!
• "Slower handling" is- you guessed it- more stable geometry. Essentially a bike that is so easy to ride, you can track stand it easily, and/or ride no handed over rough ground without the bike bouncing off line. Geometry can play into this, but so can wheel weight, rider weight distribution, and even tire pressures. "Slow" handling bikes tend to also be a chore to corner in tighter trails or switchbacks.
• "Trail" is a result of a formula that takes into account the head angle, fork offset, and wheel diameter of a bicycle. A higher figure, (which is usually expressed in millimeters for bicycles), will indicate a front end geometry that is more stable, (slower), and a lower figure for trail would indicate the opposite, (quicker handling). You may have heard some folks in the rando world that will talk about "low trail forks" for better front end loading capabilities, and this is what they are referring to.  Mountain bikes tend to have higher trail figures for stability, and front end loads are not a concern here. 
• "Axle to Crown" is a measurement from the center line of your front wheel axle to the base of the crown race on the fork. It is useful for adjusting the head angle of your frame without modifying the frame. For instance, you could use a fork on your 29"er that had anywhere from 420mm axle to crown to over 500mm and effect head angle changes of up to 3°-4°, which has a big effect on your Trail figure.
• "Offset", or more correctly "Fork Offset", (which some refer to as "rake", which I liken to a gardening tool, but whatever...), is the distance the front axle is "offset" forward from the center line drawn through your steer tube to the ground. Where the axle is forward of this axis is measured as offset, but more here equals less. Yes- your front axle looks as if it is in front of your steer tube, but trust me- where the rubber meets the trail, that contact point is behind the center line of your steer tube if you draw a line straight down from the axle to the ground and compare the two points.  More offset = less stable Trail figures. So, if you push the axle further away from the steer tube center line, the tire contact point will get closer to the intersection of the steer tube axis with the ground equaling less Trail. (Of course, head angle and wheel diameter may negate this or enhance it.) Having a hard time visualizing this? Think of a shopping cart wheel. The axis where it pivots is your steer tube, the wheel's contact patch is behind that. Now tilt the axis, which is normally vertical, to be more like a bicycle head angle. See it now?

Okay- that's enough for one post. In the meantime, go knock yerself out playing with this Bicycle Trail Calculator . I'll come back again with another edition of "29"er Geometry: Tuning Forks" soon.

29"er Geometry: Old School, New School, or No School?

Front End Geo

Twenty Nine Inch Bikes were always at odds with folks riding 26"ers early on because they felt soooo different. Besides the overall feeling of the wheels, the main complaints centered around handling issues related specifically to the front end of the bike. The reason for this was pretty plain. The fork trail figures for 29"ers were different than they were for 26"ers, merely due to wheel diameter change. A bigger diameter wheel, with no other changes to the front geometry, (besides the obvious axle to crown measurement, but not necessarily so), caused the trail measurement to increase, and thus made the bikes steer differently. Most would say "sluggish", or "slow" handling resulted.

So, the first geometry for 29 inch wheeled bikes specifically would generally just be a tweak to the head angle, which when steepened would get that trail figure back shorter a bit. Trouble was, doing that too much would cause more issues with toe overlap in smaller sizes. That is why to this day you'll hear folks say the 29"ers are "only for tall people". (Of course, that's not at all true now.)

Since companies were reluctant to set up rigid forks with more offset when they couldn't get more offset in suspension fork crowns, thus making bikes handle totally differently, the standard operating procedure was to steepen the head angle. 72 degree head angles were commonplace with 38-40mm offsets. Some companies were doing even steeper angles in the head tube, up to 73 degrees. Of course, even in the "early days" there were exceptions, like Fishers with 43mm offset Marzocchi forks and Raleigh XXIX+G bikes that came with 70 degree head angles! 

It seems even early on  divergent paths to 29"er geometry were being pursued to adapt the big wheels to preferred handling traits. Some liked the so called "sluggish feel" of bigger wheels, and some wanted the bigger wheels to handle "just like 26 inch wheeled bikes".

G2 Geometry

 When I first met Gary Fisher at Interbike in 2006, he mentioned to me that "...soon we'll all be able to tune or bikes." He was talking about getting new fork offsets for 29"ers specifically, and suspension forks in particular. What he knew right then was that Fisher Bikes were about to unleash a "Pandora's Box" of front end geometry weirdness on the masses.

Of course, I am talking about "G2" geometry. The centerpiece of which was the longer offset suspension fork crowns made for it by Fox Shocks, which before this point were not in the 29 inch wheeled market place. This allowed Fisher engineers to relax head angles, and smaller bikes were no problem with regard to toe overlap. Subsequently, many more manufacturers started to ask for a longer offset crown from Rock Shox, and Manitou. The offsets were nominally set at 44-47mm, but, as is true to this very day, 38mm offsets were still being produced for 29"ers.

Regardless, this allowed most company designs to go back to 71 degree head angles, with some going to as slack as 70 degrees. This resulted in the older designs being called "Old School Geometry" for 29"ers, and this new offset era being called "New School" geometry for 29"ers. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, as you can see by reading this, what we have is not a sea change in geometry, or even an "evolution" as much as we have more choices. More ways to "tune our bikes", just like Gary Fisher said way back in '06. Companies are even getting into the game to differentiate their designs and ride feel. Rigid forks are being built out of carbon with 38mm offsets like those from Whiskey Parts, Ritchey, Syncros, and others.

So, when it comes to front end geometry, it would be most accurate to say there is "No School" geometry. The numbers are all over the place, and it doesn't look like that is going to change anytime soon.

29"er Geometry: Old School, New School, or No School?

Front End Geo

Twenty Nine Inch Bikes were always at odds with folks riding 26"ers early on because they felt soooo different. Besides the overall feeling of the wheels, the main complaints centered around handling issues related specifically to the front end of the bike. The reason for this was pretty plain. The fork trail figures for 29"ers were different than they were for 26"ers, merely due to wheel diameter change. A bigger diameter wheel, with no other changes to the front geometry, (besides the obvious axle to crown measurement, but not necessarily so), caused the trail measurement to increase, and thus made the bikes steer differently. Most would say "sluggish", or "slow" handling resulted.

So, the first geometry for 29 inch wheeled bikes specifically would generally just be a tweak to the head angle, which when steepened would get that trail figure back shorter a bit. Trouble was, doing that too much would cause more issues with toe overlap in smaller sizes. That is why to this day you'll hear folks say the 29"ers are "only for tall people". (Of course, that's not at all true now.)

Since companies were reluctant to set up rigid forks with more offset when they couldn't get more offset in suspension fork crowns, thus making bikes handle totally differently, the standard operating procedure was to steepen the head angle. 72 degree head angles were commonplace with 38-40mm offsets. Some companies were doing even steeper angles in the head tube, up to 73 degrees. Of course, even in the "early days" there were exceptions, like Fishers with 43mm offset Marzocchi forks and Raleigh XXIX+G bikes that came with 70 degree head angles! 

It seems even early on  divergent paths to 29"er geometry were being pursued to adapt the big wheels to preferred handling traits. Some liked the so called "sluggish feel" of bigger wheels, and some wanted the bigger wheels to handle "just like 26 inch wheeled bikes".

G2 Geometry

 When I first met Gary Fisher at Interbike in 2006, he mentioned to me that "...soon we'll all be able to tune or bikes." He was talking about getting new fork offsets for 29"ers specifically, and suspension forks in particular. What he knew right then was that Fisher Bikes were about to unleash a "Pandora's Box" of front end geometry weirdness on the masses.

Of course, I am talking about "G2" geometry. The centerpiece of which was the longer offset suspension fork crowns made for it by Fox Shocks, which before this point were not in the 29 inch wheeled market place. This allowed Fisher engineers to relax head angles, and smaller bikes were no problem with regard to toe overlap. Subsequently, many more manufacturers started to ask for a longer offset crown from Rock Shox, and Manitou. The offsets were nominally set at 44-47mm, but, as is true to this very day, 38mm offsets were still being produced for 29"ers.

Regardless, this allowed most company designs to go back to 71 degree head angles, with some going to as slack as 70 degrees. This resulted in the older designs being called "Old School Geometry" for 29"ers, and this new offset era being called "New School" geometry for 29"ers. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, as you can see by reading this, what we have is not a sea change in geometry, or even an "evolution" as much as we have more choices. More ways to "tune our bikes", just like Gary Fisher said way back in '06. Companies are even getting into the game to differentiate their designs and ride feel. Rigid forks are being built out of carbon with 38mm offsets like those from Whiskey Parts, Ritchey, Syncros, and others.

So, when it comes to front end geometry, it would be most accurate to say there is "No School" geometry. The numbers are all over the place, and it doesn't look like that is going to change anytime soon.

Friday News And Views

 We Are Not Amused: Ya know, sometimes I wonder if the product guys at some of these companies are paying attention to the competition. Case in point: SRAM announces a new mountain bike wheel line called "Rise". Okay.....that's all well and fine.  Here are the details...

XC wheels have a carbon rim, 19mm inner rim width, 24 spokes, weigh a claimed 1420 gms, and will go for 2G in February when the are slated to be available in 29"er sizes. Hubs convertible to 15QR Front, 142X12 Rear.

Did you notice something missing there? Yeah....no tubelessness out of the box. Really SRAM? I'd expect something more from SRAM myself. No tubeless system at all?

To be fair, I have read that they are working on "something". Wow......

Okay, so let's take a look here. It doesn't take long to figure out that the competition is way down the trail already with regard to product already on the trail. Bontrager, (pictured), and Easton have bomber tubeless systems and all the other stuff in carbon rims at very competitive weights already. And if you really wanted a Stan's system, (which SRAM has said will work with Rise wheels), then why not get the "real thing"? Or how about these American Classic hoops? (Yes- tubeless out of the box.)

One has to wonder if SRAM is paying attention to these things, because their offering isn't looking all that impressive at this point. (For 2 grand, at any rate) Maybe they ride like golden butter and I will be amazed, but.......no tubeless system? Weird.

Can You Handle It? 

So, this Raleigh Talus 29"er Pro that is on test is going to get some folks befuddled. Whenever I start writing about front end geometry, it happens.

Trail, head angle, and wheel size mixed in with top tube lengths, stem lengths, handle bar widths, and you name it. The minds start shorting out and trying to wrap your head around all of this sometimes makes steam come outta yer ears. But know this: Even our brightest minds can't figure out for sure why bicycles work, so don't feel bad if this handling stuff gets you all upside down when you think about it.

Now I could really blow things up by adding in a statement or two about chain stay lengths!

The thing is, at the end of the day, you ride. If your bike requires something to help it along, most humans can deal with it if they have to. Work it to get around a corner, or just twitch your left hip to go left? Either way, most folks can get accustomed to getting the dance moves right. It is the fact that you don't have to stay with the same partner that gets the mind to roving, and that's where the trouble begins. I guess with my job I could be seen as stirrer of pots to some degree, eh?

Get Out!

Fall is already ending in some parts of this country, and here, it is about as good as it is ever gonna get for the next six months. If you don't get out and ride this weekend, well then.......you probably blew yer chances. 

I have got some riding plans for the weekend and I won't be idle. Hopefully the image taking opportunities will be good too.

I'm still working on figuring out the camera. Funny thing is that many folks take to the things like fish in water, but for some reason I just don't seem to feel the need to go all into RAW, aperture settings, and fiddle with crazy settings that my camera has. I just want to shoot some pics and if some come out, hey....that's great. 

I also may be a bit odd in that I really don't want to know that stuff.  I like surprises. If it comes out, or not, I am okay with that. I suppose the digital era brought that on, because obviously, spending a metric ton of money on film and processing wouldn't be too practical if you didn't know what you were doing in the first place.

I just want to get out, hunt down some images, and take em home.   To me it is part of an adventure, and geeking out on the camera part isn't the thing for me. It is for some of my friends though, and that's all good. The main point is about riding bicycles and having fun, for me. The picture taking is just part of that fun.

So, get out and have some fun this weekend and ride your bicycles.

Friday News And Views

 We Are Not Amused: Ya know, sometimes I wonder if the product guys at some of these companies are paying attention to the competition. Case in point: SRAM announces a new mountain bike wheel line called "Rise". Okay.....that's all well and fine.  Here are the details...

XC wheels have a carbon rim, 19mm inner rim width, 24 spokes, weigh a claimed 1420 gms, and will go for 2G in February when the are slated to be available in 29"er sizes. Hubs convertible to 15QR Front, 142X12 Rear.

Did you notice something missing there? Yeah....no tubelessness out of the box. Really SRAM? I'd expect something more from SRAM myself. No tubeless system at all?

To be fair, I have read that they are working on "something". Wow......

Okay, so let's take a look here. It doesn't take long to figure out that the competition is way down the trail already with regard to product already on the trail. Bontrager, (pictured), and Easton have bomber tubeless systems and all the other stuff in carbon rims at very competitive weights already. And if you really wanted a Stan's system, (which SRAM has said will work with Rise wheels), then why not get the "real thing"? Or how about these American Classic hoops? (Yes- tubeless out of the box.)

One has to wonder if SRAM is paying attention to these things, because their offering isn't looking all that impressive at this point. (For 2 grand, at any rate) Maybe they ride like golden butter and I will be amazed, but.......no tubeless system? Weird.

Can You Handle It? 

So, this Raleigh Talus 29"er Pro that is on test is going to get some folks befuddled. Whenever I start writing about front end geometry, it happens.

Trail, head angle, and wheel size mixed in with top tube lengths, stem lengths, handle bar widths, and you name it. The minds start shorting out and trying to wrap your head around all of this sometimes makes steam come outta yer ears. But know this: Even our brightest minds can't figure out for sure why bicycles work, so don't feel bad if this handling stuff gets you all upside down when you think about it.

Now I could really blow things up by adding in a statement or two about chain stay lengths!

The thing is, at the end of the day, you ride. If your bike requires something to help it along, most humans can deal with it if they have to. Work it to get around a corner, or just twitch your left hip to go left? Either way, most folks can get accustomed to getting the dance moves right. It is the fact that you don't have to stay with the same partner that gets the mind to roving, and that's where the trouble begins. I guess with my job I could be seen as stirrer of pots to some degree, eh?

Get Out!

Fall is already ending in some parts of this country, and here, it is about as good as it is ever gonna get for the next six months. If you don't get out and ride this weekend, well then.......you probably blew yer chances. 

I have got some riding plans for the weekend and I won't be idle. Hopefully the image taking opportunities will be good too.

I'm still working on figuring out the camera. Funny thing is that many folks take to the things like fish in water, but for some reason I just don't seem to feel the need to go all into RAW, aperture settings, and fiddle with crazy settings that my camera has. I just want to shoot some pics and if some come out, hey....that's great. 

I also may be a bit odd in that I really don't want to know that stuff.  I like surprises. If it comes out, or not, I am okay with that. I suppose the digital era brought that on, because obviously, spending a metric ton of money on film and processing wouldn't be too practical if you didn't know what you were doing in the first place.

I just want to get out, hunt down some images, and take em home.   To me it is part of an adventure, and geeking out on the camera part isn't the thing for me. It is for some of my friends though, and that's all good. The main point is about riding bicycles and having fun, for me. The picture taking is just part of that fun.

So, get out and have some fun this weekend and ride your bicycles.

The Conundrum

Every so often the subject of head angle, offset, and trail comes up and trips up the average mountain biker that is just getting into 29"ers, or is thinking a bit deeper about that next big wheeler for the stable. It never ceases to cause mass confusion and statements of "fact" are bandied about that are at best misunderstandings, and at worst, down right fairy tales.

Why is that? Well, part of the blame rests on 26"er geometry and how we as mountain bikers relate to the "known" quantities that represents. Head angles are within a relatively narrow range, offsets are practically locked in, and the handling traits of the segments of mountain biking they represent are codes to live by when buying a new bike. Vast experimentations happened with 26 inch wheels, but that was 25 years ago now. Before a lot of mountain bikers knew about bicycles, or were even born.

When 29"ers became popular enough that Gary Fisher Bikes convinced Fox and Rock Shox to do customized suspension fork offsets for them, the can-o-worms opened up on geometry for wagon wheelers and the old way of codifying handling wasn't working anymore. Call it geometrical chaos. What fork "works" with what head angle. What offset is "best" for trail riding in Fayetteville, Arkansas? What about swapping G2 forks to non-G2 frames? And on and on.

I ended up trying to help solve some of the mess with my fork offset tests that I ran for the better part of 2008. I wrote other posts about the subject as well. Still, I am just one measly voice in the midst of a huge forest. The confusion rages on unabated as more new riders come into the 29"er realm and find out things are "not quite right" with the geometry of big wheels.

Interestingly, the whole of the questions seem to revolve around "what works" and "what doesn't work". At least in a general sense. The term "works" means a lot of different things to different people, unfortunately. My take on it was, and still is that it "all works". You just need to try it "all out" and see which flavor suits you, your riding style, and your trails. Trouble is, most folks balk at experimentation, thinking things through for themselves, and researching. They just want to know "what works".

So, anymore I just have a bit of fun with this. I throw my Blackbuck, pictured above, out as an example. I call it "The Conundrum", the bike that shouldn't work at all, but does, and does so quite well, thank you very much. The numbers, which folks like to read and read in to, are off the charts with the Blackbuck. A huge offset- 51mm- is used. A super steep head angle is the result- 74 degrees- which is a full two degrees steeper than most any 29"er considered to be "twitchy" these days. Even the axle to crown is shorter- 440mm- which is "out there" for 29"ers in that measure. So what you get is a geometry that on paper seems to indicate instability to the point that the bike should be unrideable off road.

Nothing could be further from the truth. It "works".

And I guess that is the best way to leave things. It either will get some folks to think, or just laugh it off as coming from some nutcase and they will go right back to their pontificating and debate.

It's all good. I'll be smiling broadly as I speed through the woods on the bike that shouldn't "work"- but does, all because of the stability of 29 inch wheels. It ain't rocket science folks.

The Conundrum

Every so often the subject of head angle, offset, and trail comes up and trips up the average mountain biker that is just getting into 29"ers, or is thinking a bit deeper about that next big wheeler for the stable. It never ceases to cause mass confusion and statements of "fact" are bandied about that are at best misunderstandings, and at worst, down right fairy tales.

Why is that? Well, part of the blame rests on 26"er geometry and how we as mountain bikers relate to the "known" quantities that represents. Head angles are within a relatively narrow range, offsets are practically locked in, and the handling traits of the segments of mountain biking they represent are codes to live by when buying a new bike. Vast experimentations happened with 26 inch wheels, but that was 25 years ago now. Before a lot of mountain bikers knew about bicycles, or were even born.

When 29"ers became popular enough that Gary Fisher Bikes convinced Fox and Rock Shox to do customized suspension fork offsets for them, the can-o-worms opened up on geometry for wagon wheelers and the old way of codifying handling wasn't working anymore. Call it geometrical chaos. What fork "works" with what head angle. What offset is "best" for trail riding in Fayetteville, Arkansas? What about swapping G2 forks to non-G2 frames? And on and on.

I ended up trying to help solve some of the mess with my fork offset tests that I ran for the better part of 2008. I wrote other posts about the subject as well. Still, I am just one measly voice in the midst of a huge forest. The confusion rages on unabated as more new riders come into the 29"er realm and find out things are "not quite right" with the geometry of big wheels.

Interestingly, the whole of the questions seem to revolve around "what works" and "what doesn't work". At least in a general sense. The term "works" means a lot of different things to different people, unfortunately. My take on it was, and still is that it "all works". You just need to try it "all out" and see which flavor suits you, your riding style, and your trails. Trouble is, most folks balk at experimentation, thinking things through for themselves, and researching. They just want to know "what works".

So, anymore I just have a bit of fun with this. I throw my Blackbuck, pictured above, out as an example. I call it "The Conundrum", the bike that shouldn't work at all, but does, and does so quite well, thank you very much. The numbers, which folks like to read and read in to, are off the charts with the Blackbuck. A huge offset- 51mm- is used. A super steep head angle is the result- 74 degrees- which is a full two degrees steeper than most any 29"er considered to be "twitchy" these days. Even the axle to crown is shorter- 440mm- which is "out there" for 29"ers in that measure. So what you get is a geometry that on paper seems to indicate instability to the point that the bike should be unrideable off road.

Nothing could be further from the truth. It "works".

And I guess that is the best way to leave things. It either will get some folks to think, or just laugh it off as coming from some nutcase and they will go right back to their pontificating and debate.

It's all good. I'll be smiling broadly as I speed through the woods on the bike that shouldn't "work"- but does, all because of the stability of 29 inch wheels. It ain't rocket science folks.