Mountain Bike Frame Geometry
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NL, Canada
Posts: 26
Bikes: 2009 Specialized Sirrus Sport, 1980ish Kuwahara Woodlands, 2003 EV Global E-bike, 2010 Kona Dawg
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Mountain Bike Frame Geometry
Hey All . . .
I have been riding the pavement for a couple of years and now want to try off-road. I'm interested in XC. I'm doing my research . . . hardtail vs full, 29 vs 26 and new vs used.
My question is about frame geometry. A friend mentioned that if I buy used make sure I don't get a downhill bike as the frame geometry is different than a XC. I have not had a chance to ask him to explain further. Can someone help me out.
What are the visual differences in frames? Is there a difference? What to I look for to ensure that I am looking at a XC bike and not a downhill?
Tks :-)
I have been riding the pavement for a couple of years and now want to try off-road. I'm interested in XC. I'm doing my research . . . hardtail vs full, 29 vs 26 and new vs used.
My question is about frame geometry. A friend mentioned that if I buy used make sure I don't get a downhill bike as the frame geometry is different than a XC. I have not had a chance to ask him to explain further. Can someone help me out.
What are the visual differences in frames? Is there a difference? What to I look for to ensure that I am looking at a XC bike and not a downhill?
Tks :-)
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: West Yorkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,773
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 453 Post(s)
Liked 104 Times
in
87 Posts
What bike is it? find out, then look at the manufactures website, they will have the intended use on it.
In very broad terms for XC vs DH, normally XC will have upto 100/120mm front travel, hardtail or FS, the bikes will be light weight, DH minimum 160mm always full suspension normally a lot heavier than XC, AM falls in the middle with 120-160mm front, and same rear.
The gemoetry will reflect the amount of travel that the suspension has.
In very broad terms for XC vs DH, normally XC will have upto 100/120mm front travel, hardtail or FS, the bikes will be light weight, DH minimum 160mm always full suspension normally a lot heavier than XC, AM falls in the middle with 120-160mm front, and same rear.
The gemoetry will reflect the amount of travel that the suspension has.
#3
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NL, Canada
Posts: 26
Bikes: 2009 Specialized Sirrus Sport, 1980ish Kuwahara Woodlands, 2003 EV Global E-bike, 2010 Kona Dawg
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I don't have any particular bike in mind yet, I still scanning the advertisements. Good idea though . . . check the manufacturer's web site.
I like your broad stroke explanation . . . that will get me started. I'm not familiar with the abbreviation AM though??
I thought geometry also had something to do with the angle of the steering post . . . or am I mixing up bike technology?? :-)
I like your broad stroke explanation . . . that will get me started. I'm not familiar with the abbreviation AM though??
I thought geometry also had something to do with the angle of the steering post . . . or am I mixing up bike technology?? :-)
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: West Yorkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,773
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 453 Post(s)
Liked 104 Times
in
87 Posts
AM - All Mountain or trailbike
For the angles, this relates to the steerer tube and seat tube, the effective top tube & seatstays all play a part.
For the angles, this relates to the steerer tube and seat tube, the effective top tube & seatstays all play a part.
#6
Gone.
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 509
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I thought geometry also had something to do with the angle of the steering post . . . or am I mixing up bike technology?? :-)
More than you ever want to know about the subject is here, courtesy of Sheldon Brown, may he pedal on in Valhalla forever.
#7
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
For all the different types of riding, there is a "sweet spot" that makes it not only most efficient (fastest WITH lesser effort), but the most enjoyable. Geometry affects that directly.
The first item affected is steering; a 'steeper' head angle makes for faster steering, which can put you on your face going down a steep hill. But for flat areas, pavement, etc., it can be a good thing. Seat angle is next, and that directly affects where YOU are in relation to the pedals; it can be harder to pedal if you're too far 'behind' the pedals themselves (and inefficient if you're too far forward). Like Little Red Riding Hood, somewhere in the middle is 'just right'.
Measurements are also part of geometry; too short of a top tube (from the seatpost to the stem) can make you feel cramped, and make it harder to handle the bike. Too long of a top tube can actually injure you, from being too stretched out. A shorter wheelbase handles and turns faster, a longer one is more stable in the rough stuff.
There's a fair amount to it, that's why 'fit experts' can charge what they do. But they are best left to competitive riders; the average rider just has to hit 'comfortable'.
Example: for me, the distance from my all-the-way-down pedal to the top of my saddle is very nearly a meter; my ideal top tube/stem combo is 3/4's of that. I like my handlebar less than 1 inch below saddle height, and the 'kneecap drop' just behind the pedal axle. A handlebar less than 26 inches wide makes me feel cramped. My favorite bike's headtube angle was about 68 degrees, not real steep (70+ is considered 'XC aggressive').
They're getting closer, but with 29er's, it's still coming together, not as established; I couldn't tell you what my 29er fit numbers would be. (Not worried about it, either, a 29er is not in my future....)
The first item affected is steering; a 'steeper' head angle makes for faster steering, which can put you on your face going down a steep hill. But for flat areas, pavement, etc., it can be a good thing. Seat angle is next, and that directly affects where YOU are in relation to the pedals; it can be harder to pedal if you're too far 'behind' the pedals themselves (and inefficient if you're too far forward). Like Little Red Riding Hood, somewhere in the middle is 'just right'.
Measurements are also part of geometry; too short of a top tube (from the seatpost to the stem) can make you feel cramped, and make it harder to handle the bike. Too long of a top tube can actually injure you, from being too stretched out. A shorter wheelbase handles and turns faster, a longer one is more stable in the rough stuff.
There's a fair amount to it, that's why 'fit experts' can charge what they do. But they are best left to competitive riders; the average rider just has to hit 'comfortable'.
Example: for me, the distance from my all-the-way-down pedal to the top of my saddle is very nearly a meter; my ideal top tube/stem combo is 3/4's of that. I like my handlebar less than 1 inch below saddle height, and the 'kneecap drop' just behind the pedal axle. A handlebar less than 26 inches wide makes me feel cramped. My favorite bike's headtube angle was about 68 degrees, not real steep (70+ is considered 'XC aggressive').
They're getting closer, but with 29er's, it's still coming together, not as established; I couldn't tell you what my 29er fit numbers would be. (Not worried about it, either, a 29er is not in my future....)