Author Topic: spomann  (Read 844 times)

FedericoBettini




federic000

Re: spomann
« Reply #1 on: October 05, 2023, 12:23:43 PM »

FedericoBettini


federic000

Re: spomann
« Reply #3 on: October 05, 2023, 01:52:50 PM »
You re right it’s not but what a f****g name  ;D

BruceJR

Re: spomann
« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2023, 11:26:53 PM »
The geometry on that frame is not what I would be looking for in a modern XC bike.

carbonazza

Re: spomann
« Reply #5 on: October 07, 2023, 11:10:26 AM »
The geometry on that frame is not what I would be looking for in a modern XC bike.

What is for you a very modern geometry?

federic000

Re: spomann
« Reply #6 on: October 07, 2023, 02:08:49 PM »
It’s not about modernism here, it’s about angles completely random. HA is 63 while seattube angle is 73.5  :-\ so what is it? 63 HA is on the DH range

BruceJR

Re: spomann
« Reply #7 on: October 07, 2023, 04:23:14 PM »
63 degree head angle MUST be a mistake.  I don't think it's even possible to have a 73.5* seat angle and 63* head angle...

I proper XC bike should be in the 66-68* head angle and 75-76* seat angle or steeper like Scott Spark have 77* seat angle. Some people might prefer a little older school geometry and there are more Chiner frames around with 69* head angle and 74* seat angle.  That would not be my choice as I use an XC bike more like a 'down country'/trail bike if it has proper geo with good reach like an Epic Evo or Scott Spark.  If you don't care that much or only race then the older school geometry could work just fine.  But the bike on the OP post seems way off to me.