A Search For "Gravel" Geometry": Part 2 - Myths & Traditions

Delving into the world of geometry for any bicycle is a lesson in how various opinions are held in high regard, how traditions affect reality, and how reality is often nothing like what anyone thinks it is. 

Okay, so do the science. Check out the data! That should square things up, right? Right? Well, considering that humans ride bicycles, and not robots, you have one gigantic, monstrous wildcard in the equation. Consider this quote I came across in my research from an article on chriskvalecycles.com page speaking about a research paper done by a couple of scientists that was being discussed there concerning geometry and bicycles:

 "However, they do stress the extremely important point that the person-machine relationship is so complex and so variable that mathematical models and absolute statements are, at very best, only a rough guide."

"Only a rough guide"? Yep! So....how do we know anything for certain then? Great question. It just is hard to get through the cloudy, vagueness introduced by us humans. Consider confirmation bias, beliefs in personalities, hearsay, and myths passed down as "truth". Most of which are things based on theories that haven't been thoroughly vetted or are not considering this "human factor" at all. 

Speaking of which, I ran a fork test in 2008 where I tried to keep everything the same except the fork. I accounted for handlebar positioning, bottom bracket height, saddle to handle bar height, and more. I ran suspension forks and rigid forks. 

I tried this 430 A/C, 38mm offset fork and 7 others on the same 29"er.

The main thing I learned there was that the human element is a powerful one. I learned that within a few rides I was able to make almost every fork work the way I wanted them to. Differences? Yes, there were, but adaption? Yes. Totally. 

And every set up has to be seen as a system, which is something I've held to be very important for years. One measurement, one change, affects everything. You cannot point at "head angle" or whatever, and say "that's going to be "this" in terms of handling. 

Then there seems to be some widely held "truths" about geometry that may have been originally thought out not because the old designers were seeking a handling trait, per se', but as a way around a materials limitation. Take, for instance, the popular "low trail" (trail figure is a measure of front end geometry) designs popularized by old French "constructuer" builders. A site I discovered during my research claims that back in the day, drop bar handlebars had a longer reach. This was due to limitations in manipulating the handlebar stock, which forced these bars to have a long reach, which in turn affected overall reach for a rider. So designers had to shorten the top tubes accordingly. This led to massive toe overlap, so the answer was, according to this source, low trail geometry. Low trail geometry features a longer fork offset which pushes the front wheel out front, further away from the rider.

Now that source's claims can be debated. But the argument put forth there is plausible, and it illustrates how a solution to a problem becomes religion after decades of use and lore are layered on top. Now the common ability to bend and shape materials helps illustrate why things like longer top tubes, shorty stems, and slacker head tube angles are becoming more popular now. This stuff isn't "new" though. In fact, it was figured out a century ago. It's just that it took a revolution in thinking about geometry, instead of just sticking to the ordinary ways, which were partially driven by traditions, but also by ease of manufacturing concerns. 

The staid old ways of thinking were entrenched in the industry for decades, until mountain bikes came along, that is, and in particular, the 29" wheel, which kind of blew the doors open on design which had been closed for so long. (Read about the story of where 29"ers came from HERE)  Old ways were rediscovered that had been forgotten, and traditional thinking and ease of manufacturing had less of a hold on bicycle design. Now is "The Golden Age" of cycling. You've had choices brought forth in the last 20+ years that were unheard of before 2010 and are now commonplace. 

Next: New freedom to dream up a "new" kind of bike. But is it really new?

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!

The Canyon Grail Gravel Bike: My Take

Canyon range topping Grail 8.0 Image courtesy of Canyon

NOTE: Large doses of "my opinion" will be handed out in gloppy dollops today. You've been forewarned.....

Canyon Bikes is a German outfit that is a "disrupter" in the bicycling marketplace. They are a very well engineered and produced bicycles sold 'consumer direct", meaning- this won't be sold through a local bike shop. I don't mind their business model, so I've no axe to grind there, but that is a huge part of Canyon's DNA and something that needs to be thought of whenever you see their bicycles. In some ways, the "checks and balances" that a traditional retail model brings to design choices is not present with Canyon. That can be a good thing or a bad thing.

That said, here is my take on Canyon's gravel bike, the "Grail". Besides the obvious religious reference the name brings up, it also conjures up the thought of earnest pursuit and desire. An interesting moniker for such a bike. Unless Canyon thinks this is the "holy grail of gravel bikes", in which case I'm going to strongly disagree. I'll get to that later......

Of course, the bike is carbon fiber, a fact barely mentioned by most media coverage of the bike so far. I looked at a few reports, but this one from Cyclingtips is the best, most detailed I've found yet. Then again, with the oddball "Hover" handle bar/stem system, one might be forgiven for focusing on other fare here. Yes, that's an innovative take on vibration management. Yes......it is also proprietary. That can be good or bad. A few media folks have already stated their misgivings on the design, which may reflect deeper negativity towards the design, since when your host flies you out to a swank media camp for the unveiling, it isn't easy to be harsh on the product. At any rate, early commentary by others is interesting in that it doesn't go all in for the Hover system.

A look at how the Hover bar geometry works in relationship to traditional set ups. Image courtesy of Canyon

I won't get into details about the design. Go read the Cyclingtips article, but the bottom line here is either it fits you, you like it, and you won't ever want to change, or it is a big ask from Canyon to have folks compromise on fitting and ergonomics. I'm betting on the latter, but I still tip my hat to Canyon for trying something different. Beyond the striking, shocking design, here is my take on the Hover Bar system, and that will lead into why I feel Canyon missed the boat on the geometry here.

First off, they tell us that the Hover Bar is most comfortable when you ride on the hoods or even more so with your hands nearer to the stem. This is very traditional roadie positioning for rougher sections of riding in road races. Okay, fine, but.......those sections typically don't last a long time. Obviously, if road races were chock full of sections so rough that riders needed to use this position to survive them, and sit upright, not being very aero, then we would see a sea change in design to allow for more aero positioning in the drops. In fact, that's how road racing was pre-World War II. Front end design was extremely different then as compared to today.

In gravel racing, the "rough sections" are often times the entire course. Then we throw winds into the equation. If you are thinking about racing and sitting upright to make the bars work their best on this Canyon you won't be cheating the wind like the other riders around you. Even having to sit on the hoods all day isn't optimal, so Canyon's claims of great compliance may be true, but not entirely practical.

Secondly, this also leads to Canyon's choice of traditional road geometry in the front end. Weight off the bars and on your butt allows for the use of a steeper head angle with a shorter offset fork, which according to the numbers posted in the Cylingtips article, I think they are using here. That's fine until you weight the bars and the front wheel gets planted. The steep head angle (stated at 72.5°) with the short offset will make impacts want to "tuck the fork under" the rider. This was what was wrong with 29"er geometry in the beginning. Designers wanted a quicker feeling front end for 29"ers so they steepened the head angles and used the shorter offsets to achieve that. They were successful, but when used in practice it was a horribly unstable, harsh, crash prone way to get better handling due to the way forks would want to bend backward under impact, effectively making the trail figure less and therefore more unstable.

This problem was solved by using longer offsets with slacker head angles, putting the fork more in line with impacts and ridding the bikes of the mechanical trail issues while riding. This is exactly what is going on with the Canyon bike. They are effectively doing the "29"er v1" geometry mistake for a bike that is meant to be ridden in rougher terrain. The trail figure they reached is fine, but just like early 29"ers, when the rider is in the drops and fighting rough, gravelly roads in a headwind, this bike won't handle as well as a bike with a slacker head angle and longer offset with similar trail figures. Having that front wheel "out there", floating above the gravel instead of digging in is also a factor to consider here.

Otherwise I like the deep bottom bracket drop and chain stay length looks fine. The tire clearances aren't optimal, but if this is a racing bike then......fine. If it is a do everything-go anywhere at anytime bike, well then they screwed up here. You decide what they mean by limiting tire/mud clearances.

Bottom line- A striking bike that will have its fans but misses on a few key points in my opinion.

The Canyon Grail Gravel Bike: My Take

Canyon range topping Grail 8.0 Image courtesy of Canyon

NOTE: Large doses of "my opinion" will be handed out in gloppy dollops today. You've been forewarned.....

Canyon Bikes is a German outfit that is a "disrupter" in the bicycling marketplace. They are a very well engineered and produced bicycles sold 'consumer direct", meaning- this won't be sold through a local bike shop. I don't mind their business model, so I've no axe to grind there, but that is a huge part of Canyon's DNA and something that needs to be thought of whenever you see their bicycles. In some ways, the "checks and balances" that a traditional retail model brings to design choices is not present with Canyon. That can be a good thing or a bad thing.

That said, here is my take on Canyon's gravel bike, the "Grail". Besides the obvious religious reference the name brings up, it also conjures up the thought of earnest pursuit and desire. An interesting moniker for such a bike. Unless Canyon thinks this is the "holy grail of gravel bikes", in which case I'm going to strongly disagree. I'll get to that later......

Of course, the bike is carbon fiber, a fact barely mentioned by most media coverage of the bike so far. I looked at a few reports, but this one from Cyclingtips is the best, most detailed I've found yet. Then again, with the oddball "Hover" handle bar/stem system, one might be forgiven for focusing on other fare here. Yes, that's an innovative take on vibration management. Yes......it is also proprietary. That can be good or bad. A few media folks have already stated their misgivings on the design, which may reflect deeper negativity towards the design, since when your host flies you out to a swank media camp for the unveiling, it isn't easy to be harsh on the product. At any rate, early commentary by others is interesting in that it doesn't go all in for the Hover system.

A look at how the Hover bar geometry works in relationship to traditional set ups. Image courtesy of Canyon

I won't get into details about the design. Go read the Cyclingtips article, but the bottom line here is either it fits you, you like it, and you won't ever want to change, or it is a big ask from Canyon to have folks compromise on fitting and ergonomics. I'm betting on the latter, but I still tip my hat to Canyon for trying something different. Beyond the striking, shocking design, here is my take on the Hover Bar system, and that will lead into why I feel Canyon missed the boat on the geometry here.

First off, they tell us that the Hover Bar is most comfortable when you ride on the hoods or even more so with your hands nearer to the stem. This is very traditional roadie positioning for rougher sections of riding in road races. Okay, fine, but.......those sections typically don't last a long time. Obviously, if road races were chock full of sections so rough that riders needed to use this position to survive them, and sit upright, not being very aero, then we would see a sea change in design to allow for more aero positioning in the drops. In fact, that's how road racing was pre-World War II. Front end design was extremely different then as compared to today.

In gravel racing, the "rough sections" are often times the entire course. Then we throw winds into the equation. If you are thinking about racing and sitting upright to make the bars work their best on this Canyon you won't be cheating the wind like the other riders around you. Even having to sit on the hoods all day isn't optimal, so Canyon's claims of great compliance may be true, but not entirely practical.

Secondly, this also leads to Canyon's choice of traditional road geometry in the front end. Weight off the bars and on your butt allows for the use of a steeper head angle with a shorter offset fork, which according to the numbers posted in the Cylingtips article, I think they are using here. That's fine until you weight the bars and the front wheel gets planted. The steep head angle (stated at 72.5°) with the short offset will make impacts want to "tuck the fork under" the rider. This was what was wrong with 29"er geometry in the beginning. Designers wanted a quicker feeling front end for 29"ers so they steepened the head angles and used the shorter offsets to achieve that. They were successful, but when used in practice it was a horribly unstable, harsh, crash prone way to get better handling due to the way forks would want to bend backward under impact, effectively making the trail figure less and therefore more unstable.

This problem was solved by using longer offsets with slacker head angles, putting the fork more in line with impacts and ridding the bikes of the mechanical trail issues while riding. This is exactly what is going on with the Canyon bike. They are effectively doing the "29"er v1" geometry mistake for a bike that is meant to be ridden in rougher terrain. The trail figure they reached is fine, but just like early 29"ers, when the rider is in the drops and fighting rough, gravelly roads in a headwind, this bike won't handle as well as a bike with a slacker head angle and longer offset with similar trail figures. Having that front wheel "out there", floating above the gravel instead of digging in is also a factor to consider here.

Otherwise I like the deep bottom bracket drop and chain stay length looks fine. The tire clearances aren't optimal, but if this is a racing bike then......fine. If it is a do everything-go anywhere at anytime bike, well then they screwed up here. You decide what they mean by limiting tire/mud clearances.

Bottom line- A striking bike that will have its fans but misses on a few key points in my opinion.

Minus Ten Review- 2

THAT trail, not "trail", get it?

Ten years ago on the blog I was talking about a wide array of things, but one topic that I covered is still sorely misunderstood ten years down the road.

You hear folks talk about how "None of this nit picking, micro-dissection of bicycles and geometry matters. Just ride!". Then you can find the same folks talking about how they really liked this demo bike they tried, or they really liked some different rig their friend has because it "felt so good to me!". "Say one thing, do another" much? Yes. Yes, many times they do .

One of these areas of misunderstanding is bicycle geometry, but there are others as well. Tires are another big one, but let's stick to the geometry for now, since that is what I was writing about ten years ago.

Front end geometry is probably one of the biggest contributors to how you perceive a bicycle handles. Rightly so, since your hands, two of five body contact points, are directly connected to the business end of front end geometry. They feel the results of what is going on with all those angles and whatnot. Yet many people fail to recognize this, or begin to understand how that can be such a big deal. Mere millimeters of difference in "trail", the measurement which describes the stability or lack thereof in a bike, can make a huge difference in your perceptions as a rider. Head tube angles are most often referenced in discussions about front end geometry, but that is really only a part of what really matters, which is the "trail" figure.

This post a decade ago ended up becoming the catalyst for an extensive experiment I ran a year later. I took my OS Bikes Blackbuck and ran eight different forks on it all with various offsets, axle to crown dimensions, and formats. (rigid and suspended) I made every effort to keep all other fit parameters the same. It was a very enlightening experience, but I'll leave that discussion for some time down the road.  

Minus Ten Review- 2

THAT trail, not "trail", get it?

Ten years ago on the blog I was talking about a wide array of things, but one topic that I covered is still sorely misunderstood ten years down the road.

You hear folks talk about how "None of this nit picking, micro-dissection of bicycles and geometry matters. Just ride!". Then you can find the same folks talking about how they really liked this demo bike they tried, or they really liked some different rig their friend has because it "felt so good to me!". "Say one thing, do another" much? Yes. Yes, many times they do .

One of these areas of misunderstanding is bicycle geometry, but there are others as well. Tires are another big one, but let's stick to the geometry for now, since that is what I was writing about ten years ago.

Front end geometry is probably one of the biggest contributors to how you perceive a bicycle handles. Rightly so, since your hands, two of five body contact points, are directly connected to the business end of front end geometry. They feel the results of what is going on with all those angles and whatnot. Yet many people fail to recognize this, or begin to understand how that can be such a big deal. Mere millimeters of difference in "trail", the measurement which describes the stability or lack thereof in a bike, can make a huge difference in your perceptions as a rider. Head tube angles are most often referenced in discussions about front end geometry, but that is really only a part of what really matters, which is the "trail" figure.

This post a decade ago ended up becoming the catalyst for an extensive experiment I ran a year later. I took my OS Bikes Blackbuck and ran eight different forks on it all with various offsets, axle to crown dimensions, and formats. (rigid and suspended) I made every effort to keep all other fit parameters the same. It was a very enlightening experience, but I'll leave that discussion for some time down the road.  

Friday News And Views

The hard tail mtb has changed radically in the past 5 years.

The Four Biggest Innovations In Mountain Bike Hard Tails In The Last Five Years:

 The other day I was chatting with a customer and the idea of what has been the most influential changes in mountain bikes came up. I heard that some magazine or site had their ideas of what that might be. I figured I would jot down my thoughts without looking this article up and being influenced by........ well, there could be some interesting things written right here, but I'll let that go.

Here in no particular order are my thoughts on the four major changes that are the most influential in regard to hard tail mtb's over the last five years.

• 29+ Wheels: Before there was B+/27.5+ there was 29+. The idea took what we had just learned about 29"er wheels and super-sized it. Kind of like when you go to the golden arches of doom for lunch, super sizing the wheels just seemed so right. Dealing with the after-effects would be dealt with later. And......dealing with it happened sooner than later. 
• Trail Geometry or Slack, Long, and Low: Borrowed from the evolution of downhill bikes, the newer school of geometry dictated that head tube angles get really slack. Oddly enough, the original "mtb" bikes of the 70's, the Schwinn "balooners", had real slack front ends and short stems, which informed the first purpose built mtb's later. Somehow along the way mountain bikes lost their way, but now it would appear that it all has come full circle. Well, with a technological icing on the cake, so to speak. The real innovation in geometry could not happen without a drive train change. Downhillers had shed front derailleurs long before which freed up real estate to make rear suspension better. This would later be used to make the rear ends on hard tails shorter. Bottom brackets went lower as well. Which meant hard tail mtb's needed something. Of course, we needed......
• 1X Drive Trains: So, this elimination of the front derailleur allowed for that shorter rear end and lowered bottom bracket. It also, ironically, spurred the development of front derailleurs and ways to mount them that allowed for 2X systems to also be viable choices along with the shorter rear ends. But for the most part this 1X deal has opened the doors to all kinds of nuttiness. Like the elevated drive side chain stay on the Stache, shown here. 
• Wider Rims & Wider Tires: So the final piece of the puzzle is the wider rims and tires. Not a little wider, but radically wider. If you had told me five or six years ago that many people would be riding on 50mm wide rims I would have thought that was a crazy idea, but here we are. Trail bikes with 3" wide tires on 45mm-60mm rims are commonplace. The increase in traction and stability has redefined what a hard tail can do these days. 

So, all of that has informed the rise of 27.5+ and all the "trail hard tail" bikes that have become as common as single speed 29"ers were ten years ago. All this "Plus" nonsense and fat bikes stuff along side of it has been radicalizing mtb hard tail definitions for the last five years to the point that the playing field is a crazy mash-up of all kinds of goofy choices. And where will we go from here?

In ten years, it will again be a different playing field. Think that is crazy? Well, consider how many choices there are for single speed hard tail 29"ers these days.

Yeah.........

Snow Dog Update:

So, the good news is that I am a couple of cables and housings away from getting the Snow Dog back to life again. The bad news is that I keep forgetting about that. Yeah........

Bad me!

So, if I can manage to get my memory to work, I should get the Snow Dog built out and ready for next week's commuting duties. There was a surprise finding when I fished out the frame from its hiding place, which changed the direction of the build, and I have already made some plans for minor changes to be made. But first, I should get this thing up and running so any changes being considered will be worthwhile to pursue.

So, bottom line? Don't forget the cables and housings! 

I should have a report next week after the resurrection of this beast happens.

Trouble in 1X Land?

  Derailing Without A Derailleur:

 It appears that many stock Salsa 2017 1X bikes and some other 1X rigs coming out now have the preponderance for derailing their chains off the chain ring when pedaled backwards. This all without the aid of a derailleur. What?

Is this some new voodoo? No.....it is some kind of mechanical/physical principle though. I've seen some really short-stayed road bikes do this when cross chained as well.

While I haven't seen any issues come through my repair stand or on my personal 1X set ups, I get why there could be issues. Remember, we are relying on a friction based, wide/narrow chain ring tooth profile to retain the chain. There also is another factor at work- tension. That is supplied by the rear derailleur these days and is maintained, or maybe "governed" is a better word, by the friction based "clutch" rear derailleurs. Tension is also created by pedal pressure. However; when you pedal backward, the dynamics of tension are changed.

Unless the chain line is perfectly straight, this chain derailment issue could easily happen if the chain ring teeth profiles are not completely spot on. Because that is the only thing retaining a 1X chain when pedaling backward, for the most part. Now, again- I haven't seen the issues I've seen detailed online, but it does stand to reason that this would be the case. Without a front derailleur, even multiple chain ring set ups will exhibit this issue when pedaling backwards. It wouldn't surprise me that unless you are using an X-Sync spec tooth profile ring, you could be experiencing this issue, and maybe even then you might be. But like I say- I haven't had this issue, so it could be something else entirely.

Stay tuned on that front.......

Okay, we're headed for a major deep freeze here. Negative 20 on Saturday night. Hopefully y'all are somewhere warmer and out riding. Have a great weekend! 

Friday News And Views

The hard tail mtb has changed radically in the past 5 years.

The Four Biggest Innovations In Mountain Bike Hard Tails In The Last Five Years:

 The other day I was chatting with a customer and the idea of what has been the most influential changes in mountain bikes came up. I heard that some magazine or site had their ideas of what that might be. I figured I would jot down my thoughts without looking this article up and being influenced by........ well, there could be some interesting things written right here, but I'll let that go.

Here in no particular order are my thoughts on the four major changes that are the most influential in regard to hard tail mtb's over the last five years.

• 29+ Wheels: Before there was B+/27.5+ there was 29+. The idea took what we had just learned about 29"er wheels and super-sized it. Kind of like when you go to the golden arches of doom for lunch, super sizing the wheels just seemed so right. Dealing with the after-effects would be dealt with later. And......dealing with it happened sooner than later. 
• Trail Geometry or Slack, Long, and Low: Borrowed from the evolution of downhill bikes, the newer school of geometry dictated that head tube angles get really slack. Oddly enough, the original "mtb" bikes of the 70's, the Schwinn "balooners", had real slack front ends and short stems, which informed the first purpose built mtb's later. Somehow along the way mountain bikes lost their way, but now it would appear that it all has come full circle. Well, with a technological icing on the cake, so to speak. The real innovation in geometry could not happen without a drive train change. Downhillers had shed front derailleurs long before which freed up real estate to make rear suspension better. This would later be used to make the rear ends on hard tails shorter. Bottom brackets went lower as well. Which meant hard tail mtb's needed something. Of course, we needed......
• 1X Drive Trains: So, this elimination of the front derailleur allowed for that shorter rear end and lowered bottom bracket. It also, ironically, spurred the development of front derailleurs and ways to mount them that allowed for 2X systems to also be viable choices along with the shorter rear ends. But for the most part this 1X deal has opened the doors to all kinds of nuttiness. Like the elevated drive side chain stay on the Stache, shown here. 
• Wider Rims & Wider Tires: So the final piece of the puzzle is the wider rims and tires. Not a little wider, but radically wider. If you had told me five or six years ago that many people would be riding on 50mm wide rims I would have thought that was a crazy idea, but here we are. Trail bikes with 3" wide tires on 45mm-60mm rims are commonplace. The increase in traction and stability has redefined what a hard tail can do these days. 

So, all of that has informed the rise of 27.5+ and all the "trail hard tail" bikes that have become as common as single speed 29"ers were ten years ago. All this "Plus" nonsense and fat bikes stuff along side of it has been radicalizing mtb hard tail definitions for the last five years to the point that the playing field is a crazy mash-up of all kinds of goofy choices. And where will we go from here?

In ten years, it will again be a different playing field. Think that is crazy? Well, consider how many choices there are for single speed hard tail 29"ers these days.

Yeah.........

Snow Dog Update:

So, the good news is that I am a couple of cables and housings away from getting the Snow Dog back to life again. The bad news is that I keep forgetting about that. Yeah........

Bad me!

So, if I can manage to get my memory to work, I should get the Snow Dog built out and ready for next week's commuting duties. There was a surprise finding when I fished out the frame from its hiding place, which changed the direction of the build, and I have already made some plans for minor changes to be made. But first, I should get this thing up and running so any changes being considered will be worthwhile to pursue.

So, bottom line? Don't forget the cables and housings! 

I should have a report next week after the resurrection of this beast happens.

Trouble in 1X Land?

  Derailing Without A Derailleur:

 It appears that many stock Salsa 2017 1X bikes and some other 1X rigs coming out now have the preponderance for derailing their chains off the chain ring when pedaled backwards. This all without the aid of a derailleur. What?

Is this some new voodoo? No.....it is some kind of mechanical/physical principle though. I've seen some really short-stayed road bikes do this when cross chained as well.

While I haven't seen any issues come through my repair stand or on my personal 1X set ups, I get why there could be issues. Remember, we are relying on a friction based, wide/narrow chain ring tooth profile to retain the chain. There also is another factor at work- tension. That is supplied by the rear derailleur these days and is maintained, or maybe "governed" is a better word, by the friction based "clutch" rear derailleurs. Tension is also created by pedal pressure. However; when you pedal backward, the dynamics of tension are changed.

Unless the chain line is perfectly straight, this chain derailment issue could easily happen if the chain ring teeth profiles are not completely spot on. Because that is the only thing retaining a 1X chain when pedaling backward, for the most part. Now, again- I haven't seen the issues I've seen detailed online, but it does stand to reason that this would be the case. Without a front derailleur, even multiple chain ring set ups will exhibit this issue when pedaling backwards. It wouldn't surprise me that unless you are using an X-Sync spec tooth profile ring, you could be experiencing this issue, and maybe even then you might be. But like I say- I haven't had this issue, so it could be something else entirely.

Stay tuned on that front.......

Okay, we're headed for a major deep freeze here. Negative 20 on Saturday night. Hopefully y'all are somewhere warmer and out riding. Have a great weekend!