this contact points talk hasn’t explained what the actual improvement is though
so here’s my go at it
sometime fairly recently we figured out narrow fixie bars suck and wide bars offer greater control for muscling on a line through choppy terrain. But wide bars slow down the rate for steering input, so shorter stems help counter that and speed it back up more to normal. probably taken from dh bikes with direct mount stems, but people started riding their trail bikes in more aggressive dh terrain.
so now with short stems, the bars were were tucked in too far, resulting in too upright of a neutral stance and too much weight over the rear. by stretching the reach out, you can drop your shoulders and get a lower center of gravity and have more space between the axles to throw your weight.
Road bikes rely on the long stem to get weight on the front wheel since your position is more static. but as mountain bike positioning is more dynamic stem length is less about getting weight on the front and more about matching with your bars for proper steering feel.
You threw that in for a laugh, right? Otherwise +++ agree would eBAY with you again +++
Other than missing the complete opposite transformation happening to road bikes resulting in those long stems that was a pretty good back of the napkin technical discussion. Used to be the top tube on your road bike sat 15mm higher than your inseam and you never ran more than a fistful of post over the clamp. They used tiny stems that didn’t look slammed when they were too.
Just want to say that it’s good to see Mig owning this thread finally.
ur migueling it bro[/quote]
I was being facetious.
If this is true then changing the distance to the bars definitely changes weight distribution.[/quote]
weight distribution is all about where your shoulders are over the wheels
and that’s mostly dictated by your butt stuff[/quote]
I realize that weight distribution is all about shoulders over wheels.
Am I crazy thinking your neutral elbow bend position is gonna stay pretty much the same across different reaches, and the difference will be made up in hip bend/ back angle, consequently moving shoulder position?
You’re missing the huge difference
Road bikes don’t change length through the size run, they only really get taller
Mountain bikes only get taller at the seat cluster, but the front end gets longer and longer in big increments
My shoulders stay in the same place between my usual hood/drop/top positions
but
[quote=JUGE FREDD]
No, it’s not a road bike
You’re setting up the cockpit to position your weight over the wheels and for handling response, long term power production is much less important. You can always bend your elbows more to drop your shoulders when you need to motor.[/quote]
yes it’s not road bike.
dynamic positioning requires
a neutral position to
hit the extremes of weight positioning
in terms of climbing and descending
I’m saying,
you can bend your elbows
but if your reach is 4 cm shorter than ideal
(all other things being equal)
than your elbows will be already bent
more than normal
in baseline position
so
attack position will require
extreme arm bend
that will be awkward
?
(maybe I am doing all this shit wrong, but… I just don’t buy that reach to bars is inconsequential and front center is everything.)
this On-One is going the other direction though, shortening the reach while leaving the front-center long
so rephrasing the question: if you’re holding front-center and trail constant, why would you choose short reach over longer?
You’re missing the huge difference
Road bikes don’t change length through the size run, they only really get taller
Mountain bikes only get taller at the seat cluster, but the front end gets longer and longer in big increments[/quote]
derp, yeah I see i totally missed that before
this On-One is going the other direction though, shortening the reach while leaving the front-center long
so rephrasing the question: if you’re holding front-center and trail constant, why would you choose short reach over longer?[/quote]
Only thing I can surmise is people get caught on buying a certain length top tube regardless of how they’re going to set up the cockpit. Also, narrower bars (like, 685 territory) and slightly longer stems might work better for some people who maybe don’t throw their weight around as much, and use more bar rotation for steering input.
looking at on one, they seem to go for shorter reach on their bikes overall (their biggest codeine is still shorter than my medium process), so that’s just how they want their bikes to handle. I personally feel more confident on the long reach/short stem collabo; I think it has made me more confident to push my boundaries and learn to put more body english in my riding (which makes me sound a lot less crap than I am at riding bikes). It’s still a pretty progressive way of designing bikes (gary fisher tried it out for a while, currently mondraker is the most out there on the long reach idea), and maybe not all companies feel comfortable making their production runs that far outside of average
this On-One is going the other direction though, shortening the reach while leaving the front-center long
so rephrasing the question: if you’re holding front-center and trail constant, why would you choose short reach over longer?[/quote]
They want to make the head tube slack too
Theoretically the HTA is just a simplistic way to talk about the front-center and trail (and one that the consumer market is all about now), but in practice slacker bikes feel quite different even keeping the rest . It’s similar to the whole steep track bike thing where despite using a <35mm fork to keep the trail up it’s not the same.
There’s also a fit idea around shorter frame reach in this scenario that I’ve been testing an implementation of, you’ll hear more about that in a couple months.
yeah, I was thinking of tony foale / joe breeze experiments where they radically steepened the HTA while leaving f/c, trail and contact points alone. their results were basically “it’s still a bike? Maybe better at low speed parking lot maneuvers? but kind of weird too?”
it’s interesting that the dimension that’s better for trackstanding would be worse for shredding though
so if you had a bike that fit 700x32 (actual) what size 650b tire would fit in there? chain/seatstay clearance is ample. 650b x 2"?
so if you know the clearance is ample why don’t you measure it?
19mm bigger by the numbers, so 2.008"
why dont you get the fuck out of my thread if you arent going to answer my questions
and fuck off
thanks
tryna figure out a new fop situation
But you need to measure the chain stay width where.the widest parts kc the tire is to make sure that its big enough.
ask prolls