Knolly Fugitive
Wheel Size: 29’’
Travel Options:
- 125 mm rear / 140 mm front
- 140 mm rear / 150 mm front
Geometry Highlights:
- Sizes offered: Small, Medium, Large, XL
- Headtube angle: 64.75° to 66° (adjustable, see below)
- Reach: 492 mm (size Large)
- Chainstay length: 438 mm (Size Large)
Frame Material: Aluminum
Blister’s Measured Weight: 33.76 lb / 15.31 kg (Size L as built, no pedals)
Reviewers:
- Zack Henderson: 6’, 165 lbs / 183 cm, 74.8 kg
- David Golay: 6’, 170 lb / 183 cm, 77.1 kg
Test Locations: Washington, British Columbia
Test Duration: 3 months
Price for Complete Bikes: $4,599 to $5,799 USD / $5,999 to 7,699 CAD
Intro
Knolly announced an overhaul of their lineup when they revealed the updated Endorphin last fall. They followed suit with the new Chilcotin in February, and now it’s the Fugitive’s turn.
(Knolly also updated their Warden freeride bike and brought back the Delirium park / DH bike since we ran our First Look on the Fugitive.)
But back to the new Fugitive, which is Knolly’s mid-travel Trail bike and “most versatile model in the Knolly line-up,” as they put it.
The Frame
If you haven’t seen Knolly’s other new bikes, then the new Fugitive will probably look quite surprising — again, Knolly is truly overhauling their lineup, with very different design language than we’ve historically seen from the brand.
But if you have kept tabs on the transformation of Knolly’s lineup, then there aren’t any huge surprises here.
The Fugitive is still made from aluminum, rolls on 29’’ wheels, and uses Knolly’s standard Fourby4 suspension layout. Fourby4 is essentially a Horst-link arrangement with an extra pair of links to actuate the shock, which Knolly says gives them some extra control over the leverage curve. Knolly doesn’t publish kinematic data for the Fugitive, but says that they’ve increased small-bump sensitivity and bottom-out resistance as compared to the prior-generation version, and improved pedaling efficiency while they were at it.
Knolly now offers the Fugitive in two different travel configurations; it gets a stated 125 mm of travel from a 50mm-stroke shock, or 140 mm from a 55 mm shock. The standard builds come with a 140mm-travel fork (Fugitive 125) or a 150 mm one (Fugitive 140) but Knolly says you can run forks from 140 to 160 mm travel on either; the frame is shared between the two regardless.
As with the new Endorphin and Chilcotin, the Fugitive features Knolly’s updated straight top tube, less curvy downtube, and some other tweaks to the construction, including Enduro bearings in all the pivots and flat faces at all the bearing locations to make pressing replacements in and out easier.
There’s still room for a water bottle inside the Fugitive’s front triangle on the whole size range, and Knolly has added a set of accessory mounts underneath the top tube. The cable routing is internal, the bottom bracket shell is threaded (with removable ISCG tabs), and Knolly’s typical SuperBoost (or “Trail157,” as they call it) rear-wheel spacing is here, too. The rear brake mount is for a 180 mm rotor, and tire clearance is stated at 29 x 2.6’’. Knolly has also, unsurprisingly, added a UDH derailleur hanger to the Fugitive.
Fit & Geometry
Knolly offers the new Fugitive in the same four sizes (Small, Medium, Large, and XL) as the outgoing one, but it’s gotten a bit longer than the outgoing bike — though not as emphatically so as the new Chilcotin.
Reach now starts at about 440 mm for the Small and grows by roughly 25 mm per size, give or take a few millimeters depending on the travel configuration and geometry setting. That’s around 5-10 mm longer than the outgoing version, depending on size and geometry setting.
The effective seat tube angle hasn’t changed much, at around 76 to 77° (again depending on size and settings). But the headtube has gotten a good bit slacker, with the Fugitive 125 coming in at 65.25 or 66° (Slack or Neutral settings, respectively), with the taller fork on the Fugitive 140 dropping those numbers to 64.75 or 65.5°.
The Fugitive’s chainstay lengths are now size-specific, starting at 430 mm on the Small and growing by four millimeters per size. The outgoing model had 432 mm chainstays across the board. Bottom bracket drop is listed at 35 mm regardless of travel configuration or geometry setting, but the bottom bracket height for the Fugitive 125 is stated at 334 mm (Neutral setting) or 324 mm (Slack); the Fugitive 140 is 3 mm higher.
The Builds
Knolly offers the Fugitive 140 in four different build tiers and the Fugitive 125 in three. The most affordable Marzocchi / Deore build on the 140 doesn’t make its way over to the 125, but the other three tiers get the same build on either platform, apart from changes to the suspension and tires.
As they tend to, Knolly has prioritized high-end suspension and opted for less ultra-fancy drivetrains, wheels, etc. on the Fugitive. That’s a sensible way to make a high bang-for-buck build, and like many of Knolly’s recent offerings, the Fugitive stands out for being a notably good value for money spec-wise, especially for a smaller, more niche manufacturer.
Here are the details of the Fugitive’s builds:
- Drivetrain: Shimano Deore 12-speed
- Brakes: Shimano Deore 4-piston (w/ 203 mm front / 180 mm rear rotors)
- Fork: Marzocchi Z1 Air
- Shock: Marzocchi Bomber Air
- Wheels: DT Swiss M1900
- Dropper Post: SDG Tellis V2
- Drivetrain: SRAM GX
- Brakes: Magura MT5 (w/ 203 mm front / 180 mm rear rotors)
- Fork: Fox 34 Performance (Fugitive 125) / Fox 36 Performance Elite (Fugitive 140)
- Shock: Fox Float X Performance
- Wheels: DT Swiss M1900
- Dropper Post: SDG Tellis V2
- Drivetrain: SRAM GX
- Brakes: Magura MT5 (w/ 203 mm front / 180 mm rear rotors)
- Fork: Fox 34 Factory (Fugitive 125) / Fox 36 Factory (Fugitive 140)
- Shock: Fox Float X Factory
- Wheels: Spank
- Dropper Post: SDG Tellis V2
- Drivetrain: Shimano XT
- Brakes: Shimano XT 4-piston (w/ 203 mm front / 180 mm rear rotors)
- Fork: Fox 34 Factory (Fugitive 125) / Fox 36 Factory (Fugitive 140)
- Shock: Fox Float X Factory
- Wheels: Spank
- Dropper Post: SDG Tellis V2
FULL REVIEW
Knolly calls the Fugitive 140 the most versatile bike in their lineup, with 140 mm of rear travel and 150 mm up front, matched to dual 29’’ wheels. That positions the Fugitive right in the middle of the broad and amorphous “Trail” category, which seemingly manages to cover everything from overgrown XC whippets to mini-Enduro bikes.
Given Knolly’s penchant for building burly aluminum bikes, we were curious to see what “versatility” meant to their designers, and where the Fugitive would fit alongside its many peers.
Fit & Sizing
Zack Henderson (6’, 165 lbs / 183 cm, 74.8 kg): Our size Large Fugitive 140 comes with a stated 492 mm reach, 636 mm stack, and lengthy 641 mm effective top tube, but my first time throwing a leg over the Fugitive had me guessing that it was a good bit smaller than that. My typical reach preference is around 480 to 485 mm, and the Fugitive hardly felt long — if anything, it felt short, particularly while seated.
After further investigation, I think my impressions mostly had to do with the initial setup and my required saddle height. The Fugitive showed up in its Low geometry position, which is really, really low and has a 45 mm bottom bracket drop. Knolly’s geometry chart for the Fugitive doesn’t differentiate reach or stack changes between the bike’s Low and Neutral positions, but reach does get a bit shorter with most geometry adjustments as the head tube slackens and the bottom bracket height drops.
Knolly also continues to use rather slack actual seat tube angles on their bikes, a byproduct of their offset seat tube design. On the Fugitive 140, that actual seat tube angle is 68.75º in the Neutral setting, and a bit slacker in the Low position. Because of that slack actual angle, while the effective seat tube angle is listed as 76.75º in the Low position, raising and lowering the seat from the reference saddle height can cause significant swings in the effective seat tube angle. (For reference, the reference saddle height is 800 mm on a Large, measured from the middle of the BB to the top of the saddle at its center point.) That’s actually a pretty high saddle height, and in my case, I ran a 770 mm saddle height. That 30 mm shorter-than-reference height effectively moves the saddle forward compared to Knolly’s listed geometry, steepening the effective seat tube angle while also reducing the effective top tube length by a good bit.
While the standing position felt good, I typically view a 140mm-travel bike as intended for a roughly 50/50 split between climbing and descending, so the compromised seated position (in my particular case) was a fairly big deal. Fortunately, though, shifting to the Neutral setting yielded significant improvements; the seat tube angle did steepen slightly, but the seated position felt longer, and it felt more like the bike I expected based on the geometry chart.
I don’t have particularly short legs, nor are they all that long, but potential buyers should anticipate the impact that their preferred saddle height may have on the fit.
David Golay (6’, 165 lb / 183 cm, 74.9 kg): Zack and I are the same height but proportioned a bit differently (my arms and legs are longer; he’s got a longer torso). While my take on the Fugitive’s fit isn’t super different from his, I’ve got a slightly different perspective on a few of the details.
Big picture, the size Large Fugitive 140 is clearly the right size for me, and I wasn’t at all tempted to try a different frame size in either direction. And I agree with Zack that the Fugitive 140 didn’t feel quite as big as I might have guessed from its spec sheet, once I stood up and started descending.
We got the bike from Knolly with an 800 mm wide bar and 50 mm long stem installed. After a ride or two, I swapped in a 780 mm bar and 40 mm stem (both of which are more in line with my typical preferences on most bikes), which was all I needed to feel comfortable. (Zack got the bike from me with those changes already made.)
That said, if I could wave a magic wand and tweak the details, I would steepen up the Fugitive’s actual seat tube angle a bit. The seated pedaling position is just a little bit longer than I’d prefer at my 785 mm seat height. It wasn’t a big deal most of the time, but I felt a little more hunched over than I wanted to be on truly steep granny-gear climbs, and I never felt like I needed more room while seated.
Again, that sensation wasn’t nearly pronounced enough for me to have any interest in dropping down to the size Medium frame, and I was completely happy with the fit of the Large Fugitive 140 on the way down. But I think having such a big discrepancy between the actual and effective seat tube angles makes dialing in the seated pedaling position harder than it is on bikes where the two are more closely matched.
So, in contrast to Zack, I found myself preferring the Low setting on the Fugitive 140, in part because it (somewhat counterintuitively) made the seated cockpit feel a little shorter, which suited me better. Opting for the Low setting had some pros and cons in other areas, which we’ll touch on more below. But I think making the actual seat tube angle a bit steeper would make the geometry adjustment more useful from a handling / performance perspective by reducing its impact on the overall fit of the bike and forcing riders’ hands less.
Climbing
Zack: David’s Flash Review of the Fugitive 140 mentioned Knolly’s notably low anti-squat used on earlier models. As the former owner of a Knolly Warden Carbon, I can attest to that — older Knolly bikes featured very active-feeling suspension that wasn’t all that efficient under power. Knolly cited improved grip as their reason for taking that approach, and while they’re right about the general tradeoffs involved, I personally would prefer a grippier and slightly slower-rolling tire over excess pedal bob.
Happily, the Fugitive 140 feels quite a bit more peppy than the earlier Knolly bikes I’ve been on. That said, while Knolly doesn’t list suspension kinematics on their website, I’d wager that the Fugitive 140 falls slightly below average in its amount of anti-squat. It’s not quite as efficient as most other bikes in the crowded Trail category, and harder efforts will provoke a decent bit of suspension movement from the Fugitive. That said, it also seems to have a bit less pedal kickback and conforms to the trail quite well on more technical climbs.
The Fugitive 140’s geometry settings had a pretty significant impact here, too. In the Low setting, the low bottom bracket and slacker head tube and seat tube angles positioned my weight a bit farther back on the bike than I would have liked. In turn, this meant that I was running a fair bit of dynamic sag and hampering pedaling efficiency a little. I also got a lot of pedal strikes, no doubt due to the ground-hugging 45 mm bottom bracket drop.
Shifting into the Neutral setting, I found climbing to feel immensely more comfortable, both in body position and in perceived pedaling efficiency. The steeper seat tube angle in Neutral (at my specific saddle height) felt about right for a Trail bike that’s intended to be ridden on some flatter trails, and I didn’t feel like there was too much weight on my hands when I wasn’t just winching up steep climbs.
While the Fugitive still had a fairly active suspension feel in its Neutral setting, it felt much more like I would expect a 140 mm bike to feel, and I happily took it on some rather long rides.
David: Yup. Maintaining very good traction and compliance under power was clearly a big part of the Fugitive 140’s design brief, but it’s still reasonably efficient. There are quite a few bikes in this travel range that are more snappy and energetic feeling, but few of those can match the Fugitive 140’s traction and comfort under power. The Fugitive 140 strikes a reasonable balance for folks with the right preferences, rather than feeling like it really sold out on efficiency to get the traction Knolly was after.
As I already touched on, I would prefer a slightly steeper actual seat tube angle to tighten up the seated cockpit a little, though it takes a fairly steep climb for that to feel particularly relevant. The Fugitive 140’s seated pedaling position worked fine for me on flat and not-super-steep ground, but I felt more hunched over than I wanted to be when the trail really pitched up. We’re firmly into the realm of personal preference, of course, but the Fugitive 140’s seated pedaling position feels like it puts you farther over the rear wheel than average.
Particularly in the Low setting, the Fugitive 140’s bottom bracket is, well, notably low. This is even more pronounced once you factor in the relatively active suspension and its tendency to use more of its travel while pedaling than a lot of bikes that place a greater emphasis on really maximizing efficiency. That said, I didn’t mind much — the Fugitive 140 may take a little extra care than some of its competitors to time pedal strokes on really chunky, ledge-y climbs, but I found doing so to be plenty manageable. The very good traction that the Fugitive 140 offers also helps you make the most of the pedal strokes you can take when the climbing gets rough and weird.
If you’re riding a lot of really awkward, chunky climbs, the Fugitive 140 will take a bit more ratcheting of the pedals than some bikes with higher bottom brackets (particularly in the Fugitive’s Low setting, but also in the Neutral one). But the Fugitive 140’s other attributes come together nicely to make that sort of approach work well, and overall, I think it climbs pretty well, particularly for folks who’d happily take solid but not class-leading efficiency in trade for especially good traction under power.
Descending
Zack: There is a surprising variety in the ways that various 140–150 mm travel Trail bikes handle on the way down, and the Fugitive strikes a very compelling balance of handling traits. However, as with the climbing performance, it took me a minute to find my groove.
My first ride or two with the Fugitive 140 was in the Low setting, with its slacker 64.75º head tube angle and very low 45 mm bottom bracket drop. As fun as this setup was for railing high-speed corners on some of the more wide open trails in my local network (and it was very fun for that), it had too many compromises on the more technical and rolling trails that I tend to enjoy on a 140 mm bike. Pedal strikes were common, and the slightly shortened reach had the bike feeling a little bit more compact than I would have preferred.
As with climbing performance, shifting into the Fugitive 140’s Neutral setting yielded major changes to the bike’s descending performance — for the better, in my opinion. The higher bottom bracket and steeper head tube angle traded some stability for greater maneuverability at lower speeds, and the longer-feeling front end offered a bit more room in the cockpit, both seated and standing. The Fugitive’s handling generally felt a bit more lively, and I started to appreciate its uniquely solid-yet-spirited personality.
While the Fugitive certainly livened up quite a bit with the geometry change, it still feels a bit more planted compared to many other bikes in the Trail category. The frame feels solid and stiff, and while not the most energetic in its class, the 140 mm of rear travel feels predictable and forgiving on a variety of surfaces. The rear end did tend to feel like it was hanging up a bit on trails riddled with square-edged rocks and holes, but seemingly low levels of pedal kickback helped to keep things feeling quiet through my feet. That helped to spur on additional confidence on rough trails, though the Fugitive often felt most at home on trails with a mix of supported corners, jumps, and intermittent rough sections where an active riding style was rewarded.
David: I don’t disagree with how Zack characterized the Fugitive 140’s descending performance or the impact of the geometry-adjusting flip chip on its ride feel, but I preferred the Low setting overall.
The biggest reason for that preference is cornering performance — the Fugitive 140 is so, so fun to really load up and carve through a well-supported corner. I think its combination of a very low bottom bracket (again, especially in the Low setting), paired with a not-that-long wheelbase, does a lot to make the Fugitive feel like you can get really low and “in” the bike. At the same time, it’s still pretty sharp handling and quick if you unweight it and let the rear end come around a little bit — and on the right trails, that’s a blast.
There are, of course, tradeoffs. As Zack noted, the Low setting makes the Fugitive 140 feel a bit more planted / less lively; it takes a little more work to unload the bike and boost it off / over obstacles when called upon. The Neutral geometry setting offers appreciably more pop — I suspect because it makes the suspension less progressive and thus firmer off the top. But, as on the way up, the Fugitive 140’s small-bump sensitivity and grip are notably good for a bike in this travel range — in either of the Fugitive’s settings.
That said, I also agree with Zack’s take that the Fugitive 140 can hang up a little and not carry speed quite as well as I might hope through extended fast-but-rough sections of trail, especially ones that aren’t that steep and make maintaining momentum a particular priority. We are, of course, talking about a mid-travel Trail bike rather than a burlier Enduro one, and should set expectations accordingly. But there are still bikes in the Fugitive 140’s general class that are better at carrying speed through really fast, rough bits of trail. I think this comes down to a combination of the Fugitive 140’s suspension performance and the fact that it takes a little more effort to unweight than average for its class.
On trails that are chunky and tight but not especially fast, though, the Fugitive 140 does especially well. The Neutral geometry setting does make it a little more manageable in those circumstances, but the Fugitive 140’s combination of very good compliance and solid maneuverability serves it particularly well on those sorts of trails.
Especially at higher speeds, I’d characterize the Fugitive 140 as having a moderate preference for being ridden from a slightly forward stance with some care to weight the front end (more so in the Low setting than the Neutral one). Still, it’s by no means a particular outlier on that front, and it feels reasonably neutral / adaptable overall. It’s not a bike for folks who specifically want to ride very centered / upright, but the Fugitive 140 is not a bike that’s especially demanding of one specific approach.
The Build
Zack: Our test bike was Knolly owner Noel Buckley’s personal ride, so the build differed a good bit from Knolly’s stock ones. Our test bike’s Magura MT7 brakes felt like they had the right amount of power for a bike like the Fugitive 140, even if they felt a bit spongy at times and were difficult to set up rub-free. The Fox 36 Factory fork also felt like a great match with its 150 mm of travel and lively feel, though, as with all Grip2 dampers, the high-speed compression felt a bit lacking and forced a slightly higher air spring pressure to compensate. The Race Face Next R wheels were also a great match for the Fugitive, rolling quickly while feeling fairly precise thanks to the carbon rims.
We’re still working on the review, but I spent most of my time on the Fugitive 140 with Cane Creek’s new Tigon coil shock. While the stock Fox X2 was also a solid performer, I really enjoyed the Tigon’s blend of sensitivity and the ability to control the last portion of the stroke via the Ramp Tube air chamber. The beginning of the stroke did feel a bit too active for my preferences on flatter trails, though, and the air-sprung Fox X2 seemed to help the Fugitive feel a bit firmer off the top. For my preferences, I would likely stick with the Float X shock that Knolly includes as stock on the higher-end builds, but if small-bump compliance and grip are a bigger priority than efficiency, a lighter-weight coil shock like the Tigon is a great option to consider.
Considering the frame details quickly, the Fugitive seems like a very high-quality item. The titanium hardware is a nice touch, the welds are tidy, and the raw finish of our test bike will likely look good for a long time. Knolly’s internal routing system seems quite secure at the front end, though I do question the decision to place the rearward exit port right in the line of fire from the rear tire. My old Warden Carbon accumulated a lot of grit in the frame from an earlier implementation of this same design, and while the sealing on this newer design looks more robust, water and dirt are bound to make their way through at some point.
Finally, there’s always the discussion of Knolly’s complex Fourby4 suspension design. While Knolly says that it helps them decouple axle path and leverage rate, it also adds a lot of complexity to the design — and consequently, a lot of bearings to keep an eye on, some of which are pretty tiny. All bearings eventually go bad, and this layout adds additional maintenance relative to simpler designs, but our test bike remained quiet and the pivots stayed smooth throughout the test.
David: I don’t have a ton to add. The build we reviewed is decidedly non-standard, so I won’t go into too much detail there. As per usual, Knolly’s stock builds are a pretty good value, and the XT build — which is currently on sale for $4,500 USD at the time of writing — is extremely well priced.
I spent a good chunk of time on the Fugitive with the Fox Float X2 Factory shock that Knolly provided it with, as well as the Cane Creek Tigon. Both felt like pretty good fits for the bike, though neither is available on any of Knolly’s complete builds, for what that’s worth.)
That said, I preferred the Tigon overall. The Fugitive 140’s small-bump sensitivity is excellent either way, but the (mostly) coil-sprung Tigon offers a little more support through the midstroke, which helps the Fugitive 140 feel a little more lively and composed. Its tendency to hang up slightly on really sharp square-edged impacts at speed was more pronounced with the Float X2.
Big picture, there’s nothing particularly funky going on with the Fugitive 140 that would encourage me to do anything out of the ordinary for a 140mm-travel Trail bike as far as the build spec goes, and Knolly’s choices seem sensible.
I also agree with Zack that the build quality seems quite good. All the hardware is super high quality and easy to work on, and the frame is nicely aligned and stout. I’m not really a fan of internal routing in general, especially on bikes without guide tubes (as is the case on every aluminum frame I can think of), but Knolly’s implementation is pretty tidy and easy to work on.
Who’s It For?
Zack Henderson: The Fugitive 140 is an interesting offering that will cater to both newer and more seasoned riders alike. On one hand, it feels fairly forgiving and doesn’t have any particular handling quirks, making it an easy bike to get along with (more so in the Neutral setting, in my opinion). On the other hand, the solid frame and planted-yet-precise handling allow the Fugitive to be pushed pretty hard on faster descents, where it seems to punch a bit above its 140 mm of rear travel.
Regardless of skill level, the Fugitive will mostly appeal to riders who prioritize comfort and descending performance a bit more than a particularly efficient ride that can cover ground quickly. The tradeoff is that it rarely feels out of place, and it could serve as a quiver-of-one option for riders who like the engaging ride of a mid-travel Trail bike but still want to ride some technical terrain.
David: Zack and I are mostly on the same page here. The Fugitive 140 stands out for having notably plush, compliant feeling suspension first and foremost, but it still pedals reasonably well and does not turn into a mushy mess when you start pushing it harder. Folks who specifically want a very lively, poppy-feeling bike have better options, but the Fugitive 140’s planted suspension feel and excellent traction are going to appeal to a bunch of folks.
Bottom Line
The Knolly Fugitive 140 doesn’t have many lookalikes on the market, and it is also unique in the way that it combines very solid construction with a penchant for spicy riding, both up and down the hill. Where some Trail bikes want to cover big mileage at a fast clip, the Fugitive encourages a more hard-charging approach, and it’s a great option for riders who seek out technical, challenging terrain.
Great review, very balanced. I have had the fugitive 140 for about 6 weeks and my experience tracks pretty close to what the two of you describe. I’m coming off a shorter travel XC/DC type bike with the fugitive being my first longer travel mtb. I tend to run my rr suspension a bit firmer with slightly less sag and I find it helps this bike’s climbing abilities immensely and doesn’t seem to have any negative impacts to descending. It is a comfy bike! Loads of traction. There have been some learning curves for me (lower BB being one) but nothing unexpected. Maybe the only unexpected trait of this bike—well two actually—it does tend to hang up a bit on square edges as you both mentioned. I can get over that. And it climbs much better than I was expecting a 140/150 bike to ascend. It really has no business climbing as well as it does (but maybe it’s because I run a firmer rr shock and keep it in the neutral setting). This bike has been a riot to ride!
A look at the Knolly interactive geometry chart (where the dimension is shown on a drawing if you put mouse pointer over the table) shows that the ETT is not what you think and this is the main reason Knolly’s are long on paper but short in reality. What they call Actual Top Tube is what other brands call Effective Top Tube. Why they are doing it is just a mystery.
Based on my read of the Fugitive 140’s page, I think they are measuring ETT and actual top tube correctly. Actual pertains to the top tube length using the seat tube as the reference point, whereas the effective seat tube angle (as measured from the BB) is the reference for effective top tube length. ETT is always at least as long as actual, and usually longer, but a large share of companies have stopped publishing the actual top tube length because it often doesn’t really tell you much about the actual fit.
I think the main factor is the huge amount of variability in effective top tube length that is created by the very slack seat tube angle. The difference between effective top tube and actual (as with difference between effective seat tube angle and actual) is quite large, and raising or lowering the seat either above or below the reference seat height will create a significantly longer, or shorter, seated feel.
If you look closely you will notice, they don’t measure it to the middle of the seatpost at the top tube height. Other companies at least have different drawings. From what I understand, they measure ett to the effective seat post but when the seat post is on the reference height, not level with top tube. This is probably a good way of measuring it, but I thought that other companies do it differently.