Mvdp seemed to do fine on it 
Horsepower is horsepower lol.
(I think they look good, but I’m no expert still riding a 2012 Anthem)
And didn’t PFP win both the UCI World and the UCI Marathon World Gold Medals last year on the Lux which was first released allllll the way back in 2018?
I guess that was so last year 
5 Likes
I think the “old” style xc bikes are actually still faster at the end of the day. I think the push to slacker, longer, lower is more of a push so that the everyday rider / weekend warrior racer can enjoy their bike more.
4 Likes
Geometry wise, the Lux is very dated different relative to where the market is going and where XC courses (at least in Europe) are moving. Steep head tube angle, short wheelbase, longer stem, etc.
MVDP and PFP are riders that could win on any bike, and they have the benefit of being on the bike for multiple years and knowing how to make it work for them. (it’s commonly quoted by DH pros that it finds about a year to find the “center” of a bike). But it doesn’t mean that geometry is still optimal.
If it was good optimal geometry for where courses are going, you would have expected to see the new Scalpel and Epic (both of which are raced in the exact same races by high performing athletes) move towards the Lux, but instead, they went the opposite way. Similarly, BMC, Norco, Mondraker, and others have all moved in the direction of longer reach, slacker HT angles.
So that means that both the engineers and the test riders and professional riders asked for things that necessitated a different approach that what is currently expressed in the Lux’s geo.
I think the most interesting thing to keep an eye on for next season is how mechanical trail factors in to race performance. There is starting to be a divergence for some brands (Spesh) towards longer trail while some are keeping the shorter trail (Cannondale). The new Scott Spark supposedly won’t drop until next year, so we’ll have to wait and see where that one goes.
(edited to clarify)
5 Likes
Funny, so you dismiss any contribution of equipment to a rider’s success, or is that just for the brands that you dislike?
But then you also spend an abundance of time on here waxing on about head tube angles, chainstay lengths what engineers and factory riders are looking for in bikes and how they express that to their factory bike magicians to turn out the perfect bike.
But I guess MVDP and PFP have no input, correct? Canyon has no engineers right, Steve? Canyon is contractually bound to stay with a 70 degree head tube because they sold their soul to the devil to get a couple of fast people to ride their bikes at UCI events? Canyon factory riders just get stuck on the old trusty hunk of carbon and get told to “go hard” and “let your genetics win” because our bike sure won’t help you and we won’t change a thing!
Saying it is old tech because Specialized and Cannondale didn’t adopt it is asinine. Homogeneity is bike frames and geometry is never going to happen. Just because Specialized and Cannondale aren’t doing it doesn’t make it outdated.
From Trek’s Website:
Trek is the world leader in mountain bike technology. No surprise that our mountain bikes are the most technologically advanced on the market.
Did they not consult this thread first before writing that? Didn’t Trek see that Spesh and Dale were going to 67.5 and 67 degrees up front, respectively? Why wouldn’t they follow everyone else? The 2020 Trek Super Cailber has a, gasp, 69 degree head tube angle and wtf?!?! 60mm rear travel. How very dated! 
1 Like
Dude, pull back the attitude. Totally unnecessary and distracting from your overall point.
8 Likes
So much of head tube angle depends on where you live. I have some nearly 40 year old trails near me. On a super slack bike, it is somewhat hard to make some of the corners. They were build with narrow bars and super steep head tubes. My really slack newest frame is no fun to ride there, so I ride one of my oldest frames on that trail (and there is still a set of trees that I can’t fit between with my somewhat wider bars on that bike )
2 Likes
I’m not sure where you read anything adversarial in my post, my apologies if it came across that way, far from it actually. I actually don’t have anything against the Lux personally.
However, it is factual statement that the geometry is out of sync with where the entire bike industry is moving.
In an effort to explain where I’m coming from, I’ll add some additional detail here.
Not at all. Canyon makes plenty of great bikes and I regularly recommend them to friends. Of course equipment is part of a riders success and riders need to feel good on their equipment to win; this takes time and familiarity. My point was that both of these riders are generational talents and if they so chose, their skills and ability will translate to help them win on nearly any bike out there.
E.g: KC became was WC on an Epic and then series champ and multiple WC winner the following year on a Spark.
MVDP started on Canyon in 2018, PFP in 2017. It’s highly unlikely that either of them were around for the development cycle that led to the current iteration the Lux. If you have information that suggests otherwise, please share 
I 100% expect that they have thoughts about what they want for whatever the new version of the Lux will be and I’m interested to see what the result it.
I know you are trying to be snarky here but the 2018 Top Fuel had a 70 degree HT angle and a 51mm offset fork. The Supercaliber, which is the successor to that bike has a 69 degree HT angle and a 44mm offset fork which is a pretty massive difference in mechanical trail that leads to a very different feel up front.
At the end of the day, I cannot think of a manufacturer that is competitive at the top level of World Cup XC that hasn’t moved in the direction of slacker bikes, longer reach and the myriad of other measurements that are designed to result in more stability at speed and a lower/more powerful climbing position.
I could be wrong, and if you have an example, please share.
8 Likes
Unlike others I’m not angry and I don’t disagree with your broader point.
But that said, I don’t really buy the idea that there can be something objectively wrong with the bike but people are just so good that they win on it anyway. MVDP is on another level physically (showed it with that wild classics attack to win, i forget which one) but even so, most MTB races he wins are by a matter of seconds and it’s neck-and-neck until the final lap. I can’t imagine he’s giving up precious seconds in technical sections every single lap and still coming out on top over the best of the best.
From the evidence, my conclusion would be that the closer-to-old-school XC geometry can still be very fast under a rider who knows how to use it, and can capitalize on its advantages while minimizing its disadvantages. Maybe it’s saying a similar thing but I bet there’s plenty of courses in the US in particular where you could make that canyon absolutely fly.
Other thing for people to remember is that I think the headtube angle is for the riderless bike. Meaning, if a bike is meant to have more sag when the rider is on it and the rear suspension is weighted, the HT angle you see published is going to be steeper than the HT angle that will result.
So like the trek top fuel with the 115mm in the back might be meant for more sag and wind up with a slacker HT angle than published. Same with the canyon with the 120mm fork. This is probably also the reason why the WC bikes like the Epic and the Fourstroke having slacker head angles than their downcountry cousins.
1 Like
Yeah, I think I must have used an incorrect word. It’s not so much “good versus bad” but variations away from optimal for the course and situation. Certainly there are plenty of courses where a steeper HT angle would be preferable. The trend of XCO courses in Europe have only gotten faster and more technical for descents, which I would imagine is why you see a trend towards stability.
IIRC This is correct for hardtails, but not correct for FS bikes, since the triangle rotates on hardtails, but you sag in roughly equally for FS (depending on design). Unfortunately not everyone states whether the hardtail geometry is at the sag point or at static.
I believe this is why Specialized specced an unusual 42mm offset on the newer model Epic HT, due to the steepening effect and trail reduction as the bike goes into its travel. (deep travel can lead to negative trail which can sometimes result in jackkniving and is decidedly not fun)
1 Like
This 100%. Slack geo naturally wants to wander out of tight corners. I love a steeper head tube because I can carve or I can glide but I decide not the bike. A slacker head tube needs more trail to straighten out or said differently, a more upright head tube angle needs less trail to reposition and be in a good position for the next corner/turn. All elements that add potential speed in the right hands, not detract from it.
I just don’t agree that it’s the “high performing athletes” that are pushing for slacker geometry. Selling bikes is more than taking what the UCI teams do and dropping it down to every bike in the lineup. Not to mention you said “dated” geometry and you said “if it were good geometry” as well. You also said because Specialized and Cannondale (and others) aren’t doing it it must not be good.
Good for who? That’s where we disagree.
Slacker geo works better for every day riders because it is more forgiving. More forgiving means more people riding bikes. I won’t argue with that. That doesn’t mean it’s faster which is what you were saying and continue to say. You said that top rider input and engineering was leading to slacker bikes. I say that’s BS. Sales and marketing yes, faster bikes, sorry, don’t buy it.
I think you are unfortunately (and this is just my read so correct me if this is wrong) just confusing marketing and performance and doing so in a way that comes off as having some kind of axe to grind saying, “if it was good geometry.”
The Lux geometry is arguably more desirable for racing than a slacked out bike unless there is no climbing, no turning and everything is downhill on the courses you race.
Would it be impossible for Canyon to be more focused on producing the best race bike than Spash and Dale who might be more profit motivated? Maybe they don’t care as much about what dentists want and are more focused on bikes that rip. Of course, I have no idea, but it doesn’t seem impossible to think that maybe they just aren’t selling out? Some tails wag dogs and some dogs wag tails. I don’t think this is an impossible scenario.
Here’s two…Canyon and Scott if you compare their 2017 to 2020 versions.
A slacker head tube climbs less effectively than a steep head tube not more. This isn’t my opinion, just do some research or better yet go get on a bike that carves and you will feel the difference yourself. Slacker bikes add stability at speed and put less weight on the front wheel making them more stable going down and less efficient (powerful) going up e.g. not better when you are going slow, not more efficient, not more powerful. You give away efficiency going up to gain stability going down. Slacker HT’s are not magic elixirs where you get the benefits of efficiency going up and stability going down and none of the negatives.
Imagine a road bike with a 67.5. How well would that bike climb? I’m not interested.
Exactly. The Lux geometry rips. MVDP is a stud but Nino has been almost invincible over his career. MVDP can come in and beat superman on an inferior bike? Just one bridge or belief too far.
I will say the same, didn’t mean to come off as edgy as it was upon rereading it today so my apologies for the dickish and overly direct way of responding.
I still disagree with you but it’s all good and I’m happy to move on.
2 Likes
Again, apologies for using those words. No axe to grind, it was merely observational compared to the industry trend and I used the incorrect words compared to what I was trying to convey.
I went to look into this because I was curious about it.
Comparing Scott’s 2016 Spark 29 to their 2020 Spark RC (which is the most equivalent comparison, since they introduced two models): Compare: Scott Spark 2016: L -VS- Scott Spark 900 RC 2017: L -VS-
The reach did indeed extend and the HT angle did indeed slacken. And with Nino running a 110mm fork on the 120mm geo version of the Spark, his bike is a bit slacker than 68.5 currently.
Based on what I could find about the older Lux you are correct, the geometry is more or less the same, but with a new linkage design. (it wasn’t on geo geeks)
No argument here, but slackening of the HT has been accompanied with an increase in reach, decrease in stack, and steepening of the seat tube angle, which can place the rider in a more forward position for weight over the front wheel while climbing (plus the more aerodynamic position of a lower position) while creating more stability while standing and descending.
Ultimately, I’m not arguing for any particular brand nor do I have any particular loyalty to any manufacturer (my wife can confirm this based on my purchase history unfortunately 
). I’m only observing trends and doing my best to understand them.
Canyon appears to be the exception to the trend (for now). I’ll simply say that if they stay the same with the next model, I’ll happily buy you a case of the beverage of your choice 
3 Likes
Not to confuse matters, but wouldn’t the shorter fork make Nino’s bike steeper and more aggressive?
1 Like
The 100 spark has a 68.5 HT, the 120 spark has a 67.2. Nino is on 120 rear, 110 front. Unless I’m mistaken, the RC and the non-RC Spark share the same triangles. I can go run the math on it, but it’s prob half way between that (ignoring the slightly different axle to crown length between the Sid 35 and Sid 32)
(I’m ignoring the 650b version of the Spark for apples:apples purposes here since geo between wheel sizes tends to be different)
1 Like
Thank you for clarifying your choice of words, no worries at all.
To summarize, I’m saying the trend to slacker geo isn’t as abrupt or even obvious as it appeared you were implying. I also don’t think that Canyon or Scott are missing out by not moving to a slacker bike like Cannondale or Spesh have done. I don’t think their riders are missing out on any advantage whatsoever.
I think you can argue that the 4 fastest riders in the WC last year were Nino/Kate & MVDP/PFP if you look back over the 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 models of both of the bikes used by the fastest riders, the specs for frame geo are EXACTLY the same. No difference in HT angle, seat tube angle, chainstay length, not one change.
Saying rider x modifies their bike in some way seems like a bit of a cherry picked argument. We were discussing manufacturing you said you couldn’t think of one manufacturer that hasn’t gone to a slacker bike. If you go back far enough everyone was on 26’s so I think in the spirit of what you were saying, Canyon and LUX who happen to rep some of if not the absolute fastest 4 riders at the WC level have not changed their geometry in 4 years.
You can split hairs if you want but to me that list of “same” in the pic pretty much says everything.
Next year is next year but I won’t turn down free water (I don’t drink) 
I do appreciate the debate and as I said before, it’s all in good fun. Truth be told I have raced on an Epic a Scapel and a Lux multiple times since last spring and I own two of the three right now so I’m not brand loyal either 
3 Likes
He’s on a completely custom frame.
His is 110mm rear, and his fits a 38t chainring which neither the RC nor the non rc will fit
So he could be running any custom geometry and we would have no idea
1 Like
He’s on 120mm rear, 110mm front:
https://www.redbull.com/us-en/nino-schurter-bike-check
Based on what I’m seeing, there are not any substantial modifications to the existing Spark frame and I would be very surprised if they rolled a custom carbon mold for him. He also appears to be using the new 35mm Sid rather than the previous version.
My best guess is that they did an HMX SL layup in the existing 120mm Spark mold and using a 110mm fork gets the Stack pretty darn close to the 100mm version
In relation to the 38t, there are several brands that say a 36t is max, but a 38t will fit. It’s possible they rolled a custom rear triangle based on the existing mold by adding a slight shim. They also could have machined a slightly wider spindle to move the chainline slightly outboard.
Given there are so many high resolution pics of his custom bikes, I doubt that it’s the “new” unannounced Spark that is in the pipeline.
After reading the replies, I’ll just say that I definitely prefer this trend to slacker and longer XC bikes. To me a 70 degree HA is enough to completely detract me from any MTB at this point. I’ve ridden plenty of XC bikes, most of them are good at one thing. I ride steep and fairly demanding terrain, why not have a race bike that has pedaling efficiency and better geometry for the course?
If you live in a flat area, I can understand why having a slacker bike doesn’t make sense. The trends in XC are going in the right direction though, more demanding courses are relaxing the bikes designed for the application. Sure, maybe a 66 degree HA bike goes too far for XCO racing but I’d sure like to try one. To each their own! Cheers.
1 Like
Canyon Neuron? I have a 2017 Trek Fuel - it’s very similar geometry to the Neuron and I love it.
If I was in the market today, the Neuron and the Izzo would be on my short list. I’d probably go with the Izzo due to the slacker HTA which would be better for some of the gnarlier trails I ride.
I’m not a serious XC racer - just for fun. And I’m not too interested in pushing my limits on really technical terrain. So a “do it all” kind of bike works fine for me.
3 Likes