pic rel is geometry that is just right imo, anything longer or slacker or with lower BB turns it into a long haul anti-fun truck.
>>1364824>I'm not talking about trials riding. Tech doesn't mean slow.didnt said it was, but you can cammouflage your lack of skill with buying speed via equipment, which you couldnt do when style of riding was more lower speed. Todays mtb geometry is built for higher grounded speeds and they are feeling less playfull than bikes of just 5 years - Im not that stoked about the direction of performance with compromise of fun, I want a more BMXy feeling mtb, not too low BB and not stupid wide bars but with slacker HA, but not idioticly slack as is common today.
>>1364838>I'm torn right now between getting another 29er hardtail, or maybe a 27.5+ hardtail.26" steel hardtail. there. And 26" for a reason, their steering is significantly faster with same HA compared to bigger wheels.
>>1364849>That's the problem with Small/Medium/Large sizing. MTB dirtbags think it's an affront to their masculinity to be on a small, only LARGE for me because I am BIG AND STRONG.its not about that, current mtb geometry performs better at one size too big than at one size too small since longer WB=better stability, if you were buying a road bike it would be reverse. Long slack and low mtb geo is about having a certain innertia/stability when trails start throwing you around. Its stable at high speeds but corners as a truck.
>>1364857>Bike size is really unconventional there.similar to road bikes, steering is so fast there compared to mtb.
