MacRetro chat and rides thread

If you're riding rigid. the advantage of the slacker HAs is very little to do with the angle and a lot to do with the way the front wheel is that much further out in front.

Your centre of gravity is therefore further back. You could possibly get a similar positioning of your CoG with a short (or reversed) stem and a layback seatpost, although you don't have the advantage of the long toptube. (Not saying it would be as good, but cheap enough to do a few experiments with).

Disagree Epicyclo. With the current geometries the idea is to have your static weight central, but with more room to move forward and back influencing the weighting of each wheel as needed. The classic bum over back tyre style of the 90’s doesn’t work, and isn’t needed. At first you need to consciously weight he front wheel to get it to bite but soon get used to it.

Problem you’ve got Velo is that all these things work together. Changing one without being able to change the others is a compromise.

I’d say that the most important part of the current equation is the wheelbase. My current Santa Cruz is 3” longer in the wheelbase than my Mojo was. This makes the biggest difference to the handling. The top tube is also 2” longer but the stem is 1” shorter, giving only an extra inch of reach. The seat tube is also steeper, effectively moving climbing weight forward to help keep the front wheel down.

With your idea, yes you’ll slacken the HA but keep the wheelbase pretty much the same. You will also end with the weight much further to the back, unweighting the front wheel even more, reducing grip. That said, as long as you’re aware of it, then try it out. If you’ve all the parts then it’s a fun weekends tinkering in the garage. Who doesn’t love that?

Re:

Yup thought it was draft, thanks Clubby the science you describe is what I thought from my researches. When I can scramble some cash together I'll go modern hardtail frame shopping. Everything else I have even if its 26er can fit on a 27.5" frame. Cheers

Decided just to stick with my 456 but may still try the smaller 24" wheel since its a tough wide rimmed job on decent bearings to slightly slacken the head tube. Might be fun, might not.....

Re:

Your bikes might be outdated (retro even?! :shock: ), but as long as you ride within their (and your) limits you'll be grand. Everyone falls off from time to time.

The 456 with 140mm forks sounds like a blast! once you adjust to it it'll be fine.

A Raleigh Activator on those Glentress trails..... well... tbh anyone of us would have been on their arse more than once on the downhill sections!

Re:

I have had my 456 for about eight years but I have never really tried to ride it properly according to new guidelines. What I should do is get it built back up then maybe take some MTB lessons, the school of just get on and ride it method I have used since 1994 is no longer working.

What about a 29 front wheel instead of a 24 rear?

Re:

What Kaiser said.......although lets face it - folks had been offroading for many decades without more than a nod in the direction of science nor geometry until the Californians kicked off. Its possible to over engineer beyond enjoyment....but if that's yer thing carry on.

I can only go front 29er with a rigid fork, which I have or rear 24er with a Rockshox Pike out front on 26er. Even more bizzare I could go 29er front rigid 24er rear, might try that briefly for a laugh

Re:

What Mr Panda said, we can get into situation where we overthink things which then effs up how we do things.

As to making changes to your bike, try to make one change at a time, then ride it to get a feel for what that has done. If you do them all at once you've no idea which change is good or bad or if they cancel each other out.