A chat about old school geometry/riding against modern sizing/geometry/handling (Levo content).

[Max-E]

[warning - a long intro but could not really get it down in less!].

I'd like to open this up for discussion and get some thoughts from all but especially the older guys who grew up riding the old school way (fully rigid, shorter TT/longer stem, picking lines, not steamrolling etc) and your thoughts on 'modern' geometry and switching style to this.

I guess there are quite a few riders like this on here - I was an 80's BMXer (BMX was life) moved to MTB's late 80's and riding them ever since. Fully rigid for the first 15 years or so, dabbled with FS once or twice but for the last 15 it's been hardtail/100mm travel and purely singlespeed.

All about a great full workout, picking lines, throwing the bike around - love it but the but the years are catching up now and to avoid becoming a fully blown flatland fair weather fairy and to open up new horizons I'm going to the other extreme in some respects with a new (probably Levo) FS/150mm travel, geared EMTB.

After all that waffle (sorry!) wondered how those who are maybe similar background have faired especially with the long/slack thing?

After maybe 25 MTB's since '89 I have *always* ridden virtually the same set up - 22.5" (572mm) top tube, 90mm-80mm now 70mm stem, 20mm or so layback post and some weight up front, 26" wheels = nimble (twitchy) reactive - old school but again love it and it's all I ever knew.

Only EMTB I've test ridden was a (too) large Trek last year, 27.5+, Bosch. Just ploughed through everything but felt the complete opposite to old school skill - just a steamroller - I sat on and off it took me - no thanks.

So - size: 9 out of 10 people are I'm sure going to say at 5' 8 1/2" (1/2" is important at my height!) or 174cm then medium all the way. With a 45mm stem the Levo med would be almost the same cockpit length as my current HT (HT = 642mm, Levo M = 645mm) but the actual TT would be 1" longer.

I'm thinking of going down to a small (are you nuts they all shout!) as the *only* significant difference between Levo S and M is a 23mm longer TT.

On the 2018 it was much more significant with the small having a tiny 554 (under 22" TT) and the medium at 581).

Angles (less 0.25 deg ST change), headtube height, standover, BB height, etc. etc are exactly the same. If I add a 60mm stem to the S it brings me back pretty much to my current HT set up and maybe a bit more old school handling and a slightly lower seat height too (25mm) when needed.

I also cannot imagine going up to a 29er so would probably go 27.5 or 27/29 wheels.

Blimey, sorry to go on so much but please chime in! Whatever they 'call' a frame, ie S/M/L is irrelevant of course - it's how the geometry works for each individual that matters most but please post some thoughts.

And anyone who has gone for a SMALL 2019 but is maybe 5ft 8" or similar please join in.

 

[Pdoz]

I know what you mean about the trek - it's like a wheelbarrow, but to some extent the modern shorter stems also gives quicker steering so going a size down might not help - perhaps shorter travel forks to steepen the steering? Thinner tyres?

For what it's worth, my 2018 giant full e pro has a 590 mm top tube length and a relatively steep 67 degrees, so it's nimble to the point of twitchy! It feels like my 2002 giant trance, rather than my 2017 norco optic, if that makes sense? I played with a longer stem but it just made steering cumbersome - so not all modern ds emtb's have modern geometry.

 

[steve_sordy]

I have no nostalgia for bikes of old. I rode a rigid with a 3-speed Sturmey-Archer hub until I grew out of it aged 12 or so. I never owned another bike until I was in my 40's and then it was another rigid, 2x5, too small for me (crap shop). I didn't get an MTB until I was 57. So I missed out on the whole BMX and pre-suspension era.
But I have keenly observed mtb developments in their wider context: geometry (XC, Trail, All mountain, Enduro, DH), suspension, 3x -> 2x ->1x, gears (5 through 12), BB heights, internal vs external (BB, cables, hoses), brake discs (sizes, materials), materials (steel, aluminium, titanium, scandium dosed aluminium alloy, carbon fibre, back to steel, graphene?), widths (rims, tyres, hubs, bars), lengths (stems, reach, chainstay), angles (steeper seatpost, slacker head tube), tyres (tubeless, compound, tread, inserts, sealants, pressure), dropper posts (under seat lever, hydraulic or cable remote), wheel diameters (26, 29, 69, 27.5, 79), electricity (shifting, ......

Enough! There is sure to be loads more! And we haven't even got onto eBikes yet! Nor the fantastic developments in the type and number of trail centres in addition to all the natural stuff.

What an exciting period for a biker to live through! I have no wish to hark back to days of old, thank God for our species endless creativity, or we'd be still trying to do wheelies on a penny-farthing! I am not by any means a reckless first adopter, I only bought my first emtb five months ago, but I do love a bit of new technology where it can make my life better. If different geometry, better suspension, different tyres or even a bit of pedal assist can make my riding more fun, then I'm all for it! I wont be looking back!!
Anyone want to buy my Whyte T130C RS , never raced or rallied?

 

[Max-E]

Great post Steve.

No, I'm no luddite and happy to move with the times but there is a limit to how far slack/long/low/wide bars/larger wheels/more travel should be taken for the average Joe on typical UK riding.

As an example anyone who went through the whole narrower and narrower bars thing early 90's will remember. You have to draw the line somewhere.

I ride a SS HT because I like the involvement and all over workout it gives but would never wish this on others - all bikes are great IMHO. It is a golden time for sure with a quite incredible choice of hardware out there.

I guess this is a very wide ranging subject but ultimately I'd like to know if anyone has really sized down on a Levo to bring back a little of the old school handling? Or maybe it is just a bad idea and the motor +150mm travel + slack head angle would just not work with a shorter TT/longer stem?

I don't know - never tried it!

 

[HikerDave]

One consideration on the Levo; the steeper seat angle might move your seated weight forward enough so that you don’t need to downsize and use a longer stem.

I didn’t think much about geometry on my old Jamis Dakota; everything was new and I just ride it.

I personally hate a long stem; a shorter stem improved my old Trek zx8000 considerably and made it much safer on the downhills.

I have mixed feelings on head angle; my old Trek Liquid was fine in Idaho but that 69 degree head angle was a bit unstable for steep rocky Arizona trails. After the Liquid crapped out I ride a Bionicon Golden Willow for many years; on the flats adjusted to 70 degree head angle but slacked to 68 on the downhills. The stem on the triple clamp was infinitely adjustable; it looks like I set it to around 50 mm; it’s out in the yard serving as a lawn ornament. That was a nice bike until the chain stay cracked after ten years of hard use.

I’ll take the security and steering feel of a slack head angle over the quick handling of a steeper bike; I installed an angleset to tame my Fuji Auric back to 65.5 degrees and really liked it. My Haibike SDURO is at 67 degrees with 10mm more fork travel and larger wheel; it’s quick handling but without steering feel; great climber but poor descender.

For bike fit reasons I like a slightly shorter frame but I think that mainstream geometry is pretty good right now and that includes the Levo but for Arizona trails I think that the YT decoy would be absolutely perfect; large is probably 15mm longer than what I want for my long-legged 6’1” body.

Going one size down on the Levo is reasonable for a good fit but I wouldn’t do it just to have a longer stem unless you ride a lot on fast rolling terrain where you want a bit more weight on the front wheels but in that case a bike with long chainstays and short stem like my Haibike SDURO is great.

 

[steve_sordy]

............................

I guess this is a very wide ranging subject but ultimately I'd like to know if anyone has really sized down on a Levo to bring back a little of the old school handling? Or maybe it is just a bad idea and the motor +150mm travel + slack head angle would just not work with a shorter TT/longer stem?

I don't know - never tried it!

I have tried something similar, but in reverse! I had a 150mm travel clockwork bike from 2009, it had a 90 mm long stem and 660 mm wide bars. I changed the stem to 50 mm which would have moved my body backwards. To counter that, I fitted 740 mm bars to move my body back again. The massive benefit in steering response and control was so marked that I would never want to go back. I was able to ride with confidence trail features that used to have me wobbling!

Going for a shorter top tube and a stem that was longer by the same amount would leave your body position the same, but you would be more over the front wheel and the bike would feel different. To me it would feel like I was more ready to go over the bars when descending, harder to lift the front of the bike and so forth. Easier climbing though!

One of the big bike brands, Mondraker I think it was, pioneered what they called "zero geometry" (zero something anyway). Essentially, it was an extremely short stem allied to a corresponding longer reach. By "short" I mean as short as it could possibly be without the bars being sat directly on top of the fork steerer. I can remember that year in the bike mags "Trail bike of the year" tests, the Mondraker was outperforming bikes that cost twice as much. It was the bike that all the testers wanted to ride again and again. It launched a "me too" revolution in mtbs generally.

To me, all these changes have been evolutionary. An idea has been launched as an improvement. It either was or it wasn't and the market responded by buying the bikes or not. Short stems are one of the successes. The history books are littered with the failures. Long stems and short top tubes were like that so that manufacturers could have a smaller number of frames while still fitting most people's body geometry, all they had to do was to change the stem length, which was cheaper than having a wider range of frames. It may have been a hangover from road bike design. I for one would not want to go back to those days (and that was only 10 years ago!!)

 

[Max-E]

Thanks chaps - this is really useful stuff.

Just to put the long stem thing in perspective as I guess this now applies to anything over 60mm, BITD anyone who rode the early MTB's in the UK circa '88 on will know they were really road frames in design and wow were stems long.

Mad to think but my first Stumpy was a 19.5" frame, TT probably 22" or so and I actually rode it with a 150mm stem IIRC!! At the time that was how it was, we still had a heck of a lot of fun but younger bodies were much more flexible.

 

[Gary]

I'm 5'11" ex-DHer, BMX, DJer
and ride shorter bikes than you
I haven't owned longer than a 55mm stem on any mtb since before 1996. (currently all 35mm-50mm)

I can't stand bikes with anything above 460mm reach. I can ride 460mm fine but prefer a good 20mm shorter than that (my pref is between 420-435 for an FS enduro bike, 415 for a hardtail and about the same for a DH bike)
I also can't stand 29" wheels.

for background I've ridden about 20 bikes this week. ranging from sub 400mm reach to 490mm. and a mix of hardtail, Enduro and DH bikes in 26, 275 and 29

I hate how a 29" front wheel turns
I hate the weight bias a longer reach bike gives.
I hate not being able to manual at will because a bike is too long

 

[steve_sordy]

You want old school?

Try this video of DH mtb from 1992-4. I love the guy at 45 seconds in.

 

[Gary]

Yeah... let's not

 

[flash]

I'm just about to change my fork on my *cross country* hardtail from 100mm to 140mm to slacken the head angle from 69.5 to approx 67 degrees and change the wheels from 29 to 27.5 to keep about the same BB height. Stem will go from 90 to 40mm. It's fine as is on the road but plain scary on modern single track, especially after getting off my slacker FS bike. And I've discovered I'm not a fan of 29 inch wheels.

The end result won't even be super slack by modern standards but it'll be way more ride-able. As tracks have changed in the last 20 years so have the bikes. I'd never go back to old geometry.

Gordon

 

[Max-E]

Well, for anyone who is still reading. Finally got round to measuring the reach on my old HT with the aid of levels, straight edges, clamps etc. Back then of course reach was not a measurement included in any geo charts.

Anyway, lo and behold on the old Chameleon HT it comes out at 415mm which added to my 70mm stem gives 485mm to the bars.

A medium Levo has reach of 435mm. Add that to the 45mm stem and we get 480mm.

So pretty much bang on - same reach to bars but just a different (better most will say) way of getting there.

Crazy thing is the wheelbase though - given on the Levo medium 29er as 1202 mm.

And on my 26" wheel Chameleon? 1041 mm - that's a whopping 6" + more on the Levo...

Looks like the medium Levo will be spot on and downsizing to a small well below the recommended size may be a downsize too far as I'd have to pop a 60mm or more stem on. Might still work though...

Only issue I might have with the M is minimum saddle height to ground I have found given on the Levo M (with presumably the 150mm dropper) is 34".

Can anyone measure theirs and confirm this please?

 

[Gary]

I'm just about to change my fork on my *cross country* hardtail from 100mm to 140mm to slacken the head angle from 69.5 to approx 67 degrees and change the wheels from 29 to 27.5 to keep about the same BB height. Stem will go from 90 to 40mm. It's fine as is on the road but plain scary on modern single track, especially after getting off my slacker FS bike. And I've discovered I'm not a fan of 29 inch wheels.

The end result won't even be super slack by modern standards but it'll be way more ride-able. As tracks have changed in the last 20 years so have the bikes. I'd never go back to old geometry.

Gordon

Sorry dude. This is utter drivel

I still ride a 69deg 100mm hardtail on what are considered the hardest Enduro trails in Scotland.
What exactly are you scared of that a 1.5deg slacker HA is magically going to fix?

Old skool geometry still has it's place.
look at any DJ or 4X bike... they basically have XC angles and XC fork travel but are shorter with lower standover
now go and look at what the top DJ and 4X boys are hitting

By all means swap out parts to alter the geometry to your taste but calm down on the drama, eh?

 

[Gary]

Well, for anyone who is still reading. Finally got round to measuring the reach on my old HT with the aid of levels, straight edges, clamps etc.

dude
a metal tape measure from the headtube (centre of top) Horizontally back towards the saddle (a dropper makes this easy) and a plumbline dropped inline past the BB axle) will give you accurate enough reach measurement for comparison purposes.
no balancing, clamps or levels required.

 

[flash]

Sorry dude. This is utter drivel

I still ride a 69deg 100mm hardtail on what are considered the hardest Enduro trails in Scotland.
What exactly are you scared of that a 1.5deg slacker HA is magically going to fix?

Old skool geometry still has it's place.
look at any DJ or 4X bike... they basically have XC angles and XC fork travel but are shorter with lower standover
now go and look at what the top DJ and 4X boys are hitting

By all means swap out parts to alter the geometry to your taste but calm down on the drama, eh?

I don't have your experience or technique when it comes to trail riding. So, *for me* and how I ride the slacker bike is more ridable, predictable and less likely to toss me over the bars when things turn downhill.

Gordon

 

[HikerDave]

I'm just about to change my fork on my *cross country* hardtail from 100mm to 140mm to slacken the head angle from 69.5 to approx 67 degrees and change the wheels from 29 to 27.5 to keep about the same BB height. Stem will go from 90 to 40mm. It's fine as is on the road but plain scary on modern single track, especially after getting off my slacker FS bike. And I've discovered I'm not a fan of 29 inch wheels.

The end result won't even be super slack by modern standards but it'll be way more ride-able. As tracks have changed in the last 20 years so have the bikes. I'd never go back to old geometry.

Gordon

I gave the parts from my old 26 inch Bionicon after the frame cracked to a friend who purchased a frame and built a bike but no decent 26 inch forks were available so he put on a 27.5 inch fork. He’s enjoying his budget bike, but it’s a kind of wheelie monster. It actually rides OK but it’s a little too easy to lift the front wheel.

 

[nickB]

I got my first mountain bike about 30 years ago. No suspension, crap tires, long stem, etc. It was too small because I was told a small frame was better! Did a load of races on it - was fun at the time but do not want to go back!
Modern bikes with 29's, long reach and slack angles are sooo much better - The trails I ride now would be suicide on an old bike. Watching the above video is hilarious - no wonder many of the riders are pissed off!

 

[2unfit2ride]

OK, I'm not going to get technical or anything but my background was BMX in the 80's, I was 6' then as I am now & I have gone through a lot of bikes in that time.
The transition to a rigid 26" bike was hard, but this was before HT's so I delt with it, a bigger bike was less manoeuvrable , no shock there then, then came the HT's, I had some really big bikes that on paper fitted me, but the low front end & long stems just kept me planted to the ground & I had no fun. Then the Stiffee came out in about 2002 I think, got one & put a shortish stem on (for the time) it & it was great, but you know what it wasn't the short stem that made it great it was the slack seat angle aided by a layback post. Since then most of my bikes have all been a size smaller than my 6" would dictate or I use a short stem & layback post, I have a Transition Bandit & I didn't enjoy it until I could get my weight over the back wheel more buy using a layback post, I also have a Ti rigid Pipedream thing thats geo is based on the Stiffee but a size smaller than I would normally choose but with a 70mm stem & layback post it rode really well (apart form the flex).

My advice would be honest with yourself & buy a bike that suits the riding you want to do, I don't do big mountains, I just ride local in the woods on singletrack, so after buying a E hardtail with 100mm & a high top tube I changed it for a short travel (Merida E120) FS with more modern geometry mainly as I prefer the extra comfort of a FS as it allows me to get out more & there really is no disadvantage of the extra weight. FWIW I seriously thought about the Focus Raven & putting some 140mm forks on it to slacken the angles, if I could of demoed one set up like that then I think it would be my ideal bike.

HTH
Cheers.