What is your preferred MTB geometry?

The cold truth is that the mountainbike industry doesn't really care about the riders as much as we think. They run a business, and the number one priority of a business is profit. When you see bikes from 10 years ago with more aggressive geometry and then you look at the same model now and they tamed it, it doesn't mean that the old bike was bad, it was too different from what the competition was doing. Most people are not going to buy something so radicaly different and they will most likely go with the most common trend. The whole geometry "evolution" is a fine balance for these companies: you don't want to be left behind the competition, but at the same time you don't want to be too bold with the geometry numbers. In other words, if they all made bikes with 62 degree head angle, 80 degree seat posts, long reach, long chainstays, there wouldn't be a reason to buy the next year's bike, because this year's bike would be good. Leaving geometry aside, in the past 10 years the biggest development in the mountain bike industry is the dropper post. The other "developments" like, wireless shifting, internal cable routing, plus size tires, wide rims, the K.I.S system, integrating the handlebar and stem into one unit and other gimmicks are just ways for the industry to sell us more stuff. These things don't solve anything, it's just another piece of eye candy to brag to your fellow riding mates, nothing more. In my opinion, the weakest link of today's mountan bikes is the transmission. We have things like the Sram XX1 that costs as much as a new mtb, and the chain, cassette and chainring wear down in one season of riding. Think about that for a minute. The mountain bike is more or less a glorified road bike with suspension. The gearbox MTB would be the next real development. Minimal maintenance, more sprung weight, less unsprung weight, no derailleurs to bang on rocks. I think I ranted enough, and probably no one is going to see this comment, but I don't care. Go ride your bikes and have fun!

All for the longer and slacker but low BBs are a real world nightmare - forever striking the chainring on rocks and roots!

A well needed discussion on "modern" geometry. Do you really need irritating background muzak though...it is not a supermarket lol.

27.5 Remedy 170 160mm I like watching my buddies slam pedal and bb's on anything technical. The flip chip is decent for park days but would never stop and change it at the top of a trail I just climed. New bikes are designed for parks and country club grommers.

4 words: Grim Doughnut Yohan Barelli

I like my old bikes. I can reach for the dh bike if I want low, long(ish), and slack. Climbs better then it has any right to. If I want some gravel/mixed on off road I grab the 80's mtb. If I want a trail ride I grab my shorter trail bike with a dropper and wide bars. No, your bike won't have all the up to date standards in 5 years, but it will be fun.

Geometry is basically a way for manufacturers to keep selling new bikes, we've made some changes, so that means its better than lasts years bike, so you need to sell your old bike and buy the new one.

Firstly, you don't know where the limit is until you've been past it so I encourage experimentation. The 'best' geometry however depends entirely on what sort of riding you do and what sort of terrain you ride. Long, low and slack sucks if you want to jib about in the local woods on 50m hills but a shorter bike with steeper head angle and slammed back wheel will suck on big mountains. Horses for courses... For reference, I have a DJ bike, super short, slammed back wheel and a steep 69deg head angle, my enduro bike is long, low and relatively slack (64deg) and my trail bike is somewhere in the middle (66deg head angle) but if I lived next to bigger hills I'd have something much slacker (nearer 64degs) for my middle quiver bike.

Geometry changes is a way for manufacturers to sell new bikes. Ive got a feeling in years time when the current trend of long/slack/big 29ers wears out, theres gonna be a 26 revival, or at least a 27.5/26 short bike/short reach setup for jibbing/jump trails.

Mulleted my ‘18 yt Jeffsy. Put a slightly shorter stroke shock on making it a 142r 150f travel bike and still love it now. Riding my buddies Ripmo, demoed a newer Santa Cruz and riding my wife’s nukeproof reactor I still think my Jeffsy is such a solid bike. Could pedal a little more efficiently but feels just as good still on the downs.

Thank you for this material.

I love that mondraker stem at 11:06.

Ideal Trailbike geometry is about a 77* STA, 65* HTA, and 1240 wheelbase size large. Get much much longer/slacker and the bike becomes unwieldy on tight turns and for easier flat trails. Get much shorter/steeper and the bike gives up descending capability. Some of the best Trailbikes made have this geo or something very close: Specialized Stumpjumper EVO, Yeti SB140 LR, Norco Fluid FS, Rocky Mountain Element. I wouldn't recommend any Trailbike, 120mm to 150mm rear travel, that doesn't have geometry fairly close to these numbers.

I have a Salsa Rustler Carbon which is a great trail bike. It has 150mm up front and 130mm in the rear. The head angle is around 66 degrees, slightly adjustable above or below that. For a large it is a 460 reach, mine is a small at 420mm. I absolutely love this bike for a wide range of riding. I think this is the sweet spot to be honest.

The Dave Yates D.O.N.K.I.S N.O.B😂 epic

Raising the bb height is a way to keep the bike turning reasonably well despite having a long fc and cs and a slack head angle. I must say the geometry of about three to five years ago still feels best to me, 64-65 degree head angle, 435-445 reach in medium and 425-435 cs might keep you on your toes a bit more at speed but on my favourite kind of trails (mid speed, very steep and techy) it just clicks.

I love the 2000's frames with today's Drivetrain's at a age of 60. If I was younger and the bones didn't hurt as much I would be still riding small sub 17 lb bikes of the 90's but with today's drivetrain!!!! I can see myself riding today frame's later in my life as my bones hurt and ache to much when I become a old geezer!!!

No mention of XC bikes -- is that because they are still changing and that would muddy the conclusion? They may not be the most popular segment, but nor are downhill bikes

I built a “Downduro” from a Trek Session frame and suspension. Added a dropper post and an 11 speed drivetrain. It’s not the best at climbing…but it gets the job done and the decent is👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻

I feel all companies and top riders have tried and tested all types of geometries, but now we've finally peaked and eventually found the sweet spot which only varies very slightly between each brand. Both downhill and enduro have found where its at and won't deviate from that too much in the future.

Nice analysis! Although I do think that lately chainstays have been getting longer!

In my area there is limited elevation change (200 ft?), so no long downhills. Just rode a trail today that is very old school, reminded me of riding in the 90s. Natural tight terrain, no man-made features except bridges and erosion controls. Under these conditions and the other trails I use, the 69.5 degree head tube on my bike is great. The precision of the steering is so nice, making wheel placement on tricky roots and rocks very instinctual. My point is that the bikes covered here are great on the terrain they're designed for. But off-road riding happens in many types of terrain, and I am glad there are still more upright bikes available for the kind of riding I do.

Very interesting to see the development. Good job 💪🏾

older 5010 = most playful bike? = perfect geo ;)

My newest bike (Orbea Laufey) is long, big and slack. 65,5 headangle hardtail with 140 mm damper. I like it. I am kind of sitting inside the bike, rather than on the top. That takes away fear of heights and feels supersafe declining. It is good both up , down and flat, and does cornering very well. Its my slackest bike.

9:25 Marino Bikes : * hold my welding rods !

I'm still sitting here with a mid 90s Cannondale with a very steep head angle and low travel, absolutely rips on my local trails, I still can't imagine how the modern DH bikes would handle compared to it. Pretty budget friendly setup. Killer V900, box four 1x8 transmission, Manitou Black 80mm air fork, 26x2.25 MSW Utility Player tires. Think it cost me like 300 to build?

The MTB tech and geomtery peaked about 2012 with the IBIS SLR. After that, they had become more boring, wheelsize swollen. And similar in DH. Luckily, I have my 2008 Santa Cruz Bullit. It is about 150-200 mm shorter than todays bikes and the handling so much better. Todays bikes are made for going sable in a straight line. They are good a that, but that is not my type of riding.

IMO the push to a longer/slacker/lower on short travel and XC bikes adversely impacts its a-typical surroundings. They are harder to weight the front end, requiring more leaning out of the saddle, than steering on when tackling challenging off/camber climbs. The benefits in descending, I don't think are translating in overall circuit or PR times... Also even this geo on 'trail' bikes, makes it a little less 'poppy', as a steeper and more weighted front end makes for much more natural J hops and ramping up lips of jumps. Even though DH bikes do make jump lines look amazing, there is a reason why slope style bikes with 69 HTA are still purpose built.

Well covered! You did miss Peak Mustache Geometry tho. Longer, lower, slacker?

Back in 2018 I built a custom G16 (I’m 6’1”) 64ha 490 reach 445 chainstay 77 sta and a 350 bb hight as a 29er. It was and still is awesome.

Nice moustache, dude!

But the question is still why. Not the specs. What does the different angels earn or loose? Are you light and gain in stops and bumps or heavy and can power out of corners and deep shocks? Different bikes i presume?

I'm riding a Radon slide 160 from 2016 and to be honest it also isn't outdated, it runs on 27.5" wheels but thats actually advatageous on the twistier trails I ride.

Pole Voima - zero BB drop - long, high and slack rides better than any bike I've had.

Эволюция 🎉

You get good on what you use. Maybe you will find something that works better, but always chasing that perfect "tool" will just empty your bank account and leave you jaded. Perfect recipe for an internet know-it-all!

Woohoo! Future proofing all around! Dropper post - check, one-by drivetrain - check, modern geometry sweet spot - check! Rest assured, they will come up with something else we need.

Nice recap of the evolution of modern mtb's. Personally, my idea of good geometry revolves around balance. Front to rear center lengths and the right wheelbase for what you are after. Achieving a long front center is possible via long reach or a slack head tube angle. Probably some differences in handling between the two approaches, but for me the important thing is how much is the distance between the two wheels and where the rider sits between them.

All very interesting but where did you get the light up mannequin helmet holder???

according to dace and asto we will only peak when bikes will be sold in xl only and dual crown fork for enduro plus long chainstays to balance the long rech and slack headangle

Well, there's will be geometry adjusting on-the-go thechnology sonn .

Geometry is *always* a compromise. What anyone prefers is a matter of what they prioritise in their riding.

Like most roadies I grew up with BMX and MTB and let me tell ya that the bike on thumbnail looks alien-like amazing! What frame is that? Cheers!

I miss my bandit. 68° point and shoot on the narrowest of trail and fast as hell downhill

Perfect geo for a pro rider may well not be ideal for the average rider.

E-bikes will usher in a whole new set of geometry changes I think

You can do what ever you want, why does there have to be limits, if you want a “grim donut” 57 degree headtube with a 90 degree seat tube f it, go ride it…if you like it cool, doesn’t matter what the media or others think. Go ride, that’s it.

The best bike ever: my nicolai nucleon st with my super monster. 300 mm of travel. State of the art. Rohloff, frank industries...

EVO actually falls into Enduro category according to your classification (150mm of rear travel) and was ridden at EDR this season.

Before watching the video: All I see is MTB's getting closer to dirt bike geometry like they should have been in the first place. After watching the video: Yup, but disagree that they've hit the sweet spot.

I think geo is well defined within tight parameters according to your sizing. Those would be specific to the trails you ride. That'd be my impression. I doubt theres imrovements to be made in geo that are not minimal. Reach and such are out of reach. shorten up, and lower standover heights for everybody.

With "shaped skis", we overshot and then got back to something more sensible. In the mid 2000s, skis were extremely short and stiff with RIDICULOUS hourglass sidecuts.

What bike park is that with the perfect rolling tables?

The head tube geo is almost to the point of being a recumbent bike. As slack as a chopper. Starting to look goofy lol

Yup. Everything is getting bigger and heavier

Low bottom brackets have been enabled due to 1x drivetrains. However, it makes technical climbing very difficult. FAR more pedal strikes on modern bikes. I really like my 2014 Tallboy LT (which was originally 3x10) for technical climbing. 343 mm BB height. 1164mm wheelbase make it easy to lift the wheel and easy on switchbacks. Of course, I put on a -1.5 degree angleset and longer fork to get the HTA down to the high 67 degree range.

I prefer the 2018~2020 geo 64~65 ha 42~44 offset 475~490 reach . These long slack bikes are bike park only . Doing 5~8 hour back country epic technical rides need a bike that pedals, climbs efficiently and rips downhills. I have a 2019 trek slash 9.9 and a new geo 2022 slash 9.9. The 2017 ~2020 geo is a great balance. Ride 8 hours next weekend win enduro race . The new geo is a heavy tank that rides like the brakes are dragging. Sold the 2022 and still ride race the 2019

I'm predicting on the fly geometry adjustments at some point. Smart people, figure it out.

wait until we have a tecnological breakthrough like a new drivetrain system or new suspension design or kinematics. That what makes things interesting 🎉🎉🎉 (and unfortunately more expensive)

Like all things, moustaches included, things reach a point where they just become out of fashion and start to look ridiculous. 29'ers with super mellow headangles fullfil only one purpose and for everything else, are boring as hell to ride unless on the steepest of trails. Common sense, and not needing to have the lastest shiny bauble and be the cool kid will prevail. Mullets seem to be making a comeback, the wheel size, god help us if the hairstyle comes back. I think we will see 26-27.5 mixed wheel before long. You know, bikes that are actually fun to ride and engage the rider...

Trek was late to the Enduro Slack and longer game and they still did not understand that if your reach grows you neet to put the seat more forward. Why do I see almost all Trek Enduro Sleds with max seat position forward? Because they suck in understanding what long low slack also needs. Steeper seat tubes .. Trek was not a good example for the Enduro bikes. They only made their ST angle steeper now.. Most Enduro bikes are still to slack for the seatube for my liking. Do so many pedal on flat paved roads`? Dunno but the 161 from Privateer was almost perfect with that angle game...

Who knew ? A chopper from the 70's was a good downhill bike 😅

Why are you showing a picture of the 2023 stumpjumper when you're calling it the 2023 stumpjumper evo?? 64.5 is the headtube angle of the evo 2021 0nward in neutral

I prefer a 62* HTA myself, having tried a few settings. (dh only) I also prefer not as long of a reach. Yes, it does feel more stable, but at the cost of flick-ability. Quick, snappy turns are better on shorter reach for me.

Have we reach peak moustache size

how do u manual a bike that long?

i'll have do disagree. in the entire video there is no mention of the chainstay lenght, just as if everything on the back of the bike doesn't matter. in the last 10 years the chainstays have stayed more or less the same lenght while the rest of the bike got a lot longer. thats a big mistake and causes the bikes to feel really unbalanced. future bikes will have longer chainstays so you can ride the bikes in a more neutral bodyposition without loosing front end grip. we already see the longer chainstays on some bikes and im sure it will be more comon in 2-3 years. Having a XL Downhill bike with less than 450mm chainstays is rediculous, these is realy no problem with chainstays 460mm and more when your bike has 500mm reach.

Mondraker is the one who invented best geometry

grim donut

Lets put it to a real world test. I will take old man John Tomac on a 90's bike, and pit him up against anybody today on a modern slacker, on every kind of terrain that has ever been ridden on a Mt. Bike. Guess what bike is better for 95% of what we ride?

0:00 when calculus is exploited

Pretty sure Kona beat Mondraker on long low slack with the Process.

Don't worry people. Soon the bicycle industry will invent new factors to focus the publics eyes. Remember, once they advertised the complicated new rear suspension designs. Papers and papers, and youtubers trying to advertise rear suspension as much as possible. Oh, that went well didn't it, after a while everyone realised that all designs had their pros and cons and not clear winner. Know they have emphasized on geometry and a new circle of advertisments began. And all forgot the suspension design. Let's see what they come up to next to focus our attention on.

What about the placebo effect? Consumers feel something different therefore it must be better. Yet they might not be any faster. What about cycling bodies fixing the geometry, so it's out of the hands of frame designers.

They just need to ditch the short chainstays and that's it.

LONGER? WHY? No god please. Lower YES but not LONGER Its already hard with those full war ship downhill machines to manual because they are so long i vote for testing shorter bikes with longer or higher or longer AND higher stems (aggain)

No such thing as "peak". Bikes change, trails change to adjust, and bikes and trails follow each other. Maybe geo has matched today's trails, but this is just temporary. E bikes will change trails substantially. Bike Geo will chase those trails.

yeah, it's perfect to not being able to turn with such a wheel base

The modern "safety bike" layout has been around for 140 years. You'd think that we would've reached peak geometry about 100 years ago. How are we still figuring this out?

Get out and ride, its all smoke and mirrors /marketing hype for any rider with a modicum of talent, millimeters here and there and degrees plus or minus will not make an iota of difference

Next MTB trend : monocycle ? 🤣

My favourite bike is my 97 lavadome. Meh

How are bike companies going to sell new bikes if they're not better than current ones?

Still not worth and unjustified the price bike makers charge. A half dozen tubes welded together = $5000?!?!(or more) A Chevy Spark (which is a car) can be bought for $14,500 in 2023 ...20,000+ parts

Longer means worse cornering... .trails have turns lol

Conshumer? 😂

we reached peak bullshit years ago, sport of tryhards.

Every single geo works because human body is most adaptable bilogical unit. All else is bulshit. You do not need geo,you need to adapt..

They ugly, and heavy thats the problem with modern mtb’s

It‘s longer, lower, faster, stupid Ride Nicolai 😂

Pikebike did it first

The modern mnt bikes and Gary fisher design makes an ugly bike.

Enduro and DH should all move to Middrive gearboxes, belt drive, mullet with a high pivot rear suspension layot. Headtube angle around 64° with an inverted fork. XC and trail should just agree to retire and let their lovechild "downcountry" 🤠🐄 take center stage. Let them continue to pay the derailer tax.

nothing handled better than an mb-1

grim donut