Originally Posted by
chaadster
yeah, like I thought, you don’t understand. As I said upthread, I wasn’t talking about vintage MTBs at all, rather your conflation of fit and geometry. I agree with you a vintage MTB is not a great starting point for the OP, ot only because of the geometry tending to be long and low, but because they can get a better bike looking at new stuff. Anyway, hopefully at some point, some of this will sink in for you.
I fully understand what fit means, what geometry means, and what aesthetics means.
Again, while I could make a bike with 530mm stack and 365mm reach fit, it would aesthetically look like crap and it isnt necessary to choose such a route when one is looking to buy new.
But its more than just aesthetics. An absurdly long seatpost, a stem extender, and a comically angled stem all make for a bike that will flex more than intended and depending on the frame and component materials, it could just not be designed to safely be ridden in that manner.
I haven't conflated fit and geometry. This is an absurd back and forth that has taken away from the thread's point. Ill stop now.