Numbers are funny

Derkderkall

Derkderkall

iMTB Rockstah
This is kind of inspired by the Ripmo thread derail...but I've been thinking about it for a long time now. Isn't it funny how when you really think about it, bike geometry is all dealing with relatively close numbers in the grand scheme of things. For instance..head angles.. comparing a 70 degree to a 66. 4 degrees can make a world of difference. Only 4. As a number, it's pretty small.. but on the other hand if you are navigating and are 4 degrees off course... you might end up in Boston rather than Bermuda... So ok.. angles are not the best example... lets talk bb height.. bar width.. wheel base... or any other common length.. we measure these in mm. MM! how small is a mm.. Pretty dang small.at most. Look at chainstays.. long is considered what... 450mm. Short is 438? That is basically a centimeter. We are talking the width of a penny here. But it is enough to make the character of a bike change.

Moving on..
travel , and its categories (low, mid, long, short, fluffy?)
The ripmo is considered long travel 29er at 145mm rear. The Jeffsy for instance..is considered mid travel... hightower lt is considered long at 146mm... the new stumpy? mid? that's half a centimeter between the difference. (I assume overall geo of the bike makes the bigger difference) Isn't it crazy how different a ride can be when you really think about it.

so yeah, crazy numbers. It's cool if you think about how small the differences really are.. but how big of a difference it makes in pracice. end mindless babbling.
 
Thanks for putting this out there. And I am sorry if I added/started the derailment of Ripmo thread. Thanks for the https://geometrygeeks.bike/ link to mess around with. I'm so new to this game I shouldn't even be allowed to discuss things like milometers of different tube lengths. I just want real World comments about the bikes we all see and ride in our local trails. Thanks for all the input.
 
Good points Derkderkall....I'm in the minority crowd that couldn't care less about a single number as it relates to head angle, chain stay length, top tube length, yada, yada, etc...I guess it helps that we live in SoCal and within a 50 mile radius, we can get a demo on any bike out there w/o much trouble. I need to at least get a parking lot ride and obviously preferably a full blown demo but after 1/2 day max on a bike, I can tell if the bike is on the short list.

I do care about travel length within reason. If I'm shopping for a 6"+ travel bike, I'm not going to look at the Ripley, Primer or Tallboy but I learned with the Yeti SB5 (127mm rear travel) that bikes are surprisingly capable even that's less of a factor for me nowadays. That being said, as I mentioned on the derailed Ripmo thread, I'm in the "I'll take more travel every time" all other things being comparable crowd. People are building the Ripmo equal to or within 1/2 pound of the Ripley LS and say it climbs just as good and even better in techy chunk. Why anybody would opt for the Ripley over the Ripmo is beyond me. I guess they love that Vitamin P color?
 
mtbMike said:
Good points Derkderkall....I'm in the minority crowd that couldn't care less about a single number as it relates to head angle, chain stay length, top tube length, yada, yada, etc...I guess it helps that we live in SoCal and within a 50 mile radius, we can get a demo on any bike out there w/o much trouble. I need to at least get a parking lot ride and obviously preferably a full blown demo but after 1/2 day max on a bike, I can tell if the bike is on the short list.

I do care about travel length within reason. If I'm shopping for a 6"+ travel bike, I'm not going to look at the Ripley, Primer or Tallboy but I learned with the Yeti SB5 (127mm rear travel) that bikes are surprisingly capable even that's less of a factor for me nowadays. That being said, as I mentioned on the derailed Ripmo thread, I'm in the "I'll take more travel every time" all other things being comparable crowd. People are building the Ripmo equal to or within 1/2 pound of the Ripley LS and say it climbs just as good and even better in techy chunk. Why anybody would opt for the Ripley over the Ripmo is beyond me. I guess they love that Vitamin P color?
Click to expand...
I am with you on numbers. Have very little clue what my bikes are. I adjust to a bikes characteristics. I bought my Stumpy sight unseen. No demo either. Got on it and loved it. Made a few tweeks to it and loved it more. I just want to ride. I will leave the #'s to the geeks. If you need info on my bikes ask Sidewalk.
 
I've said it before......I find it amusing that keyboard cowboys will immediately rave about or discount a new bike based on it's numbers. Numbers only give a little bit of the overall characteristics of a bike. You hear it all the time....."wow, XXXXXX bike rode way better than the number indicated it would".

I say try the bike and see how it rides.
 
mtnbikej said:
I've said it before......I find it amusing that keyboard cowboys will immediately rave about or discount a new bike based on it's numbers. Numbers only give a little bit of the overall characteristics of a bike. You hear it all the time....."wow, XXXXXX bike rode way better than the number indicated it would".

I say try the bike and see how it rides.
Click to expand...

This^^ I have no idea what the numbers are on my mtb. I just know it likes to be ridden. :thumbsup:
 
Numbers help me zero in on a bike - but the ride quality is more than the collection of numbers. A Corvette generates more impressive numbers than a Porsche 911, but it doesn't drive better.

Head angle, seat tube angle and effective top tube length (or reach) are critical for me. I can't even consider a bike with less than a 25.5" ETT. I need an effective seat tube angle of 74° or better to keep my back in check. The numbers help me start in the right place.

Fork stanchion is a CRUCIAL number, as anything 34 or smaller feels really flexy to me (yet 35 feels great - there's your hairsplitting!). Travel matters, but not that much. 135-165 rear sounds right for me, depending on how it's executed. I've been running 150-160mm in front for over ten years. I won't go with less. Bottom bracket height and chainstay length don't matter much to me on paper. They probably make a huge difference in the way a bike handles, as does trail, sag and a million other elements.

My current favorite bike based SOLELY on the numbers is the new Pivot Mach 6. Hits all the numbers I would spec. However, the way a bike handles is more than the sum of its numbers. I wouldn't be too surprised if I rode it and said "meh."

Oh - and let's not forget a crucial number - tire pressure. I can't think of any "number" that can affect a bike's ride characteristics more than tire pressure. The fatter the tire, the more it matters.
 
Last edited:
herzalot said:
My current favorite bike based SOLELY on the numbers is the new Pivot Mach 6. Hits all the numbers I would spec. However, the way a bike handles is more than the sum of its numbers. I wouldn't be too surprised if I rode it and said "meh."

Oh - and let's not forget a crucial number - tire pressure. I can't think of any "number" that can affect a bike's ride characteristics more than tire pressure. The fatter the tire, the more it matters.
Click to expand...

I had the original Mach 6 and absolutely loved that bike. It was the only 6” travel bike I was ever truly happy to ride all day in any terrain and it climbed great as well. I demo’d the new one and was completely underwhelmed. However, every reviewer online thought is was better than the original. Meh!!
 
Good points everyone, can't trust the numbers alone. Right now, my ideal bike is the Rocky Mountain Instinct. Looking at the numbers, it is an aggressive trail bike. 140mm front and rear, 66 degree head angle (adjustable up to 67 with the ride 9), buttt, many reviewers rave about how great of a pedaling bike it is, with almost (almost) xc characteristics. Mtyumyum on youtube (who pretty much loves every bike so take with a grain of salt) actually went and bought one after testing it, raving that it climbs and pedals better than the tallboy. The numbers would have us believe that this bike would perform better downhill, but be more of a tank up compared to a bike like the TB, but not the case. (as with many bikes).
 
Derkderkall said:
Good points everyone, can't trust the numbers alone. Right now, my ideal bike is the Rocky Mountain Instinct. Looking at the numbers, it is an aggressive trail bike. 140mm front and rear, 66 degree head angle (adjustable up to 67 with the ride 9), buttt, many reviewers rave about how great of a pedaling bike it is, with almost (almost) xc characteristics. Mtyumyum on youtube (who pretty much loves every bike so take with a grain of salt) actually went and bought one after testing it, raving that it climbs and pedals better than the tallboy. The numbers would have us believe that this bike would perform better downhill, but be more of a tank up compared to a bike like the TB, but not the case. (as with many bikes).
Click to expand...

I could absolutely buy into all those comments made about the Instinct because my Primer is 140/130 and it doesn't everything well. If you told me I could only keep one of my bikes, that's the one I would keep. Just by changing the tires, you can completely change the bike. 90% of the time I run it with an Ardent 2.4 up front but I'll throw an E13 enduro tire up there and ride Palm Canyon or Noble Canyon and be happy as can be. One of my buddies who has a 27.5 Capra and 29er Intense Spyder bought a new Primer after riding mine. he sold the Spyder and hasn't ridden the Capra since. I think with a few obvious exceptions, 140 up front is the sweet spot for me but I'll still be taking the Tracer to Whistler :thumbsup:
 
Derkderkall said:
Good points everyone, can't trust the numbers alone. Right now, my ideal bike is the Rocky Mountain Instinct. Looking at the numbers, it is an aggressive trail bike. 140mm front and rear, 66 degree head angle (adjustable up to 67 with the ride 9), buttt, many reviewers rave about how great of a pedaling bike it is, with almost (almost) xc characteristics. Mtyumyum on youtube (who pretty much loves every bike so take with a grain of salt) actually went and bought one after testing it, raving that it climbs and pedals better than the tallboy. The numbers would have us believe that this bike would perform better downhill, but be more of a tank up compared to a bike like the TB, but not the case. (as with many bikes).
Click to expand...
To each his own because everyone is different. Use the opinions of others to take a given bike into consideration, or not.

The only true way to know, is to get on it (or as many as you are interested in) and rate it (them) yourself.

Something that has already been said here again and again.
 
Numbers ARE funny!!
giphy.gif
giphy.gif
 
NIQ MAN said:
There's a list of features that are necessary. Then there's a list of features that aren't necessary, but will make the ride better. The latter list is nerve wracking.
Click to expand...
Ooooh - intiguing! I'll play.

Necessary - (yes we know - wheels, tires, frame, cockpit, transmission etc)
Frame that fits your size, needs and riding preferences

Wants -
Everything else
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top