Racing Geometry - Does it make a difference to everyday use?

wombar
wombar Posts: 119
edited September 2010 in MTB general
Hi All,

I'm looking around for a new hard tail at the moment and I'm kinda stuck. One of the bikes I'm looking at (a Scott Scale 30) is supposed to have a race geometry frame, whilst the other one (a Boardman HT Pro) is supposed to be more of a generic bike frame.

So, how much real world difference does racing geometry make? What's the difference to say my Hard Rock Sport? I've seen a few posts saying that race geometry frames aren't as comfortable for longer rides. Any truth to that?

I tend to do longer XC and road rides than downhill. I've sat on the Scale, though that doesn't really tell me much, as I guess it would take an hour or two to feel the difference.

I must admit the Scale is probably overkill for what I'd use it for, but it's one of the bikes that really made a first impression on me.

Anyway, any advice would be great.

Comments

  • njee20
    njee20 Posts: 9,613
    Traditionally XC race frames were much longer with a shoter head tube, that's less extreme these days, and most bikes come with plenty of spacers and a riser bar, so although you can still get a very low front end you don't have to ride it like that.

    Scale's a great bike, go for it.
  • supersonic
    supersonic Posts: 82,708
    Also angles - many bikes nowdays have more relaxed head angles, while xc race frames tend to be steeper for faster steering.
    GT ZASKAR CARBON TEAM

    VOODOO CANZO

    Come and see me at https://www.facebook.com/biketyke/
  • Thewaylander
    Thewaylander Posts: 8,594
    lso this can make the biek twitchier on the downs.

    I have just done everything i can to get away from a more race orientated Geometry for a slacker fun bike.

    Goes back to test your bike before you buy ! :p
  • wombar
    wombar Posts: 119
    Thanks for the replies everyone. So race geometry is less upright than "normal geometry"? I.e. you lean forward more?
  • supersonic
    supersonic Posts: 82,708
    Generally yes, though does vary model to model.
    GT ZASKAR CARBON TEAM

    VOODOO CANZO

    Come and see me at https://www.facebook.com/biketyke/
  • rainerhq
    rainerhq Posts: 70
    wombar wrote:
    One of the bikes I'm looking at (a Scott Scale 30) is supposed to have a race geometry frame, whilst the other one (a Boardman HT Pro) is supposed to be more of a generic bike frame.

    I also want to buy this bike and I can´t decide which frame size. I´m 179cm tall and Scott offers two frame sizes (M and L) for this kind of rider.
    Compared to Trek race geometry, Scale frames are a bit shorter.
    Trek:
    seat tube: 470mm
    Ef. top tube 610mm
    Scale:
    seat tube: 480mm
    Ef. top tube: 590mm
    "Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride"
  • wombar
    wombar Posts: 119
    I'm about 6ft (~182cm) and I've been advised an L size would be best for me. You're about my height, but you're probably better off getting a sit on one if possible. It's a beautiful bike in the flesh.

    However, I think I'm probably going to give the Scale a miss as I need to put a pannier rack on my new bike and I won't feel comfortable loading up my panniers with a carbon frame (15-20Kg can't be a good thing on CF). The boardman also has some better components on it, and realistically I don't need a CF frame. It was more that I loved the look of the bike, but for my purposes it's just the wrong bike.

    Plus I've had a real bad run of luck with my bike recently (falling off it, it falling over etc) and I don't think I could bare to see a CF frame hit the deck because I've been careless.
  • Thewaylander
    Thewaylander Posts: 8,594
    I'm 6'2" and i ride a medium tst because it's not all about height but reach!
  • rainerhq
    rainerhq Posts: 70
    rainerhq wrote:
    I also want to buy this bike and I can´t decide which frame size. I´m 179cm tall and Scott offers two frame sizes (M and L) for this kind of rider.
    Compared to Trek race geometry, Scale frames are a bit shorter.
    Trek:
    seat tube: 470mm
    Ef. top tube 610mm
    Scale:
    seat tube: 480mm
    Ef. top tube: 590mm

    I wasn´t correct at my previous post. Scott´s ef. top tube is also 610mm
    "Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride"
  • wombar
    wombar Posts: 119
    As Thewaylander has indicated, choosing frame size is very much down to personal preference. M or L would suit your height I imagine, it just depends on how you ride.

    I prefer a slightly larger frame as I do more XC stuff that isn't too hairy, so I'd go for L. If I was doing a lot of very technical riding, I might choose the M as it would probably be more maneuverable.

    Comparing measurements online really isn't the ideal way to choose a frame size. Seriously, find yourself a Scott dealer and go sit on a Scale L and M.
  • NatoED
    NatoED Posts: 480
    at 6ft your right in th emiddle of sizes. Scots tend to have much longer toptubes than most othe rbikes so realy check it out in a shop. Hieght can be adjusted with the seat post , reach adjustments with stem length ect can realy mess up how a bike feels . Sit on a few and compaire . Bigger is not always better . I 'm 6 ft and ride a race XC merida frame thats a 18" frame for the reach , any longer and i'd have serious back pain . I just have a super long seat post . ( i'm built like a woman , long legs 34 inch but short torso.)

Categories