Originally Posted by
Clem von Jones
Here's the first generation in front of the second gen Fargo. With the first gen you at least had the option of buying a frame with a shorter headtube. In the later generations you only get too-high in every size. It's a bizarre geometry seemingly designed to frustrate anyone who rides in a lower position.
Here's the correct way to design a rigid 29er. This is a Kona Sutra LTD with its lower fork crown AND a shorter headtube. Congratulations to Kona for making the world's first sensible rigid 29er. For folks who like road bikes AND mountain bikes.
Um, no.
Look at the head tubes on those Fargos. The one with the suspension corrected fork is much shorter..
That is what “suspension corrected” means..
You have to look at the hight of the fork plus the head tube length. You have only been looking at the fork length. This is why you are confused.
Also, you can’t go comparing head tube lengths of one bike to another (or anything really) unless you have bikes of the same size, and same fork length. And even then you are not taking into account BB height.
Forget the pictures, look at the actual geometry numbers.
Your frustration is not due to how bikes are designed, it is due to your profound lack of understanding of bike geometry. The fact that it is not obvious to you that you should be on a smaller sized frame is just one example of how clueless you are about any of this.