Charles Murray has been on a roll, wrapping up the extra-short EWS season with a sixth-place behind teammate Eddie Masters in Finale this weekend. For Finale, he was running a size medium Pivot Firebird 29 with quite a few interesting spec choices.
Despite being around 6' tall (183 cm), Charles opts for the medium frame just like fellow Pivot racers, Eddie Masters, Matt Walker and Bernard Kerr. For Charles, this is because he prefers the way the medium-sized frame rides, although because of his height he finds people are often surprised he is running the medium frame size. To help out with the bike fit he runs a larger 65mm stem, which he says makes it easier to move the bike around when he's tired or on tighter trails.
Another interesting choice on the Firebird is that Charles has chosen Shimano's XT drivetrain instead of the fancier XTR offerings; he says he just prefers how XT feels and it is more durable for him. This is important to him, as his focus was on building up a bike that could take a lot of abuse. This includes alloy handlebars, and Stans Flow EX3 aluminum wheels.
For Finale, Charles was running Goodyear's Newton ST DH Ultimate, which he prefers as they apparently rolls faster than others brands similar offerings.
Charles is running a Shimano XT 12-speed drivetrain with Race Face Next R cranks.
"waitress, two popcorns please"
Do you mean 0¹/8" inches?
See plenty of people on an XL of this bike weighting forward riding exceedingly quick.
If all bikes had long chainstays the world would be a bit boring
However for most riders I guess the increasing chainstays allowing them to ride longer bikes.
So I am actually totally agreeing with you that frame size is not a matter of reach or front center only but always a question of balance between front and back length.
Spoken like someone who has never ridden this bike! it rips. weight distribution on a Large (or even XL) is not an issue...
Riding style, personal preference, whether you are riding for fun or racing, 2cm on the back is not the end of the world either way but I think if you are racing it has a noticable effect. I find my current bike with 450m CS much easier corner at speed. Its not the only factor of course so you can't take it isolation.
Interesting that in the bike check today on PB it says Brook M is running 450 chainstays on his Summum, and he is 5' 9". Sure he's not setting his bike up to do skids and wheelies in the bike park..
Rally cars don’t have traction control either.
www.pinkbike.com/forum/listcomments/?threadid=224438
Nope, I didn't do it for DH. In general they are much shorter, for the few I eyeballed. Maybe I'll put a spreadsheet together if lots of people like the Enduro data.
My current thinking - and I could be wrong - is that for a rider really pinning it, a little bit shorter bike will let them pump and work the bike over terrain with more force. A longer front end will allow higher cornering speeds, IF the rear end is also lengthened, at the expense of pumping and backsiding power. An amateur or lower-end EWS rider who is in "survival more" a little more than the very top-level riders will likely be faster on a bike that's a bit longer, since they are going to want to just hold on and recover sometimes, vs being super active and aggressive. The top EWS riders now ride like DH riders, where they are looking for every tenth of a second and going full gas.
I'd also note that most of the people downsizing are on short-chainstay bikes, like the Pivot in this post, and the SB150 under RR.
So, two aspects: front/rear balance needs to be maintained for max speed (although short chainstays and long front centers can be fun, I don't think they are fast.) This is front-center, NOT reach, so head tube angle plays into this (considerably).
Secondly, the more aggressive and active your riding style, the more you'll likely benefit from a little bit shorter reach. The more you want to be able to hold on and go fast and recover a bit, the better a longer reach will work. This means that reach choice will depend on rider preference, style, course type and conditions, etc. And that XC bikes will keep getting longer, with shorter stems, to let riders recover on the descents with less energy.
www.pinkbike.com/forum/listcomments/?threadid=224438
In other words, reach does NOT make for a more stable bike. Wheelbase does. Reach is one way to extend the wheelbase, the other two are head angle (and fork length) and chainstay length. All have their own tradeoffs. I would highly encourage people to try a very slack head tube angle, and long chainstays, but be cautious about going nuts with a longer reach, for all the reasons mentioned above.
Charles Murray: It's lots of little things really, like having a tiny, half-naked man to do your shoes up for you. Just lets you focus on the race.*
*Pic.1
Although I have been wondering how they manage with what's probably not that much water, seeing as I'll happily down a tall bottle in an hour if it's warm and I'm pedalling a lot
Yet if i do a 7km (shortest loop at my nearest trails) MTB ride, i feel like i need water (albeit only a small water bottle).
Anyone experience similiar or have any theories? Will accept science or 'science' for answers.
Although it was using a bladder in my pack snowboarding where i realised the difference hydration makes. I never used to notice feeling thirsty when i was snowboarding, so generally only had a drink when i stopped for lunch etc.
However, i found that sipping regularly from a water bladder throughout the day (making a habit of sipping on chairlifts etc so you do it automatically) made a HUGE difference to fatigue levels by the end of the day. Muscles still got tired, but i felt fresher and much more alert by the end of the day - when energy, enthusiasm and concentration would otherwise be quite low.
Which is why i'll take a water bladder for any MTB rides 10km+ now. I feel an added safety in keeping alertness and concentration levels up.
I don’t think people have struggled on bikes with shorter chainstays. Look at mondraker, santa cruz, evil, commencal riders
If you make the CS and front centre longer together then you can keep the weight distribution the same.
The clue here is that he's using a really long stem, which means that he's finding benefits in applying a more forwards weight distribution. I wonder how he would feel about using a longer CS and larger frame if the parts were available for him to test?
He’s using a long stem because the frame is not long enough. I think you’re over keyboard warrioring this. Lots of 27.5 die hards size down on 29 bikes.
He has the option of using a large frame, so the question is, why does he prefer a medium frame, and long stem compared to a large frame and a normal length stem?
P.S. I massively prefer to downsize on bikes, however I am not a racer.
I’m 6’, long arms, I initially rode in the long position on a Sz 3 frame 493mm, but after trying in the short position 483mm I found the bike to handle better and to be less tiring when doing a lot of technical riding.
So yeah, long bikes are not all that, esp when you consider that short bike today is waaasy longer than a long back from 2010.
Trendy ain't shit, ride what fits.
I agree privateer bike checks are always the coolest though.
Bike park and flow trails, sure. Add in some tech and rider skill, nope.
also, if you match the footage donut vs meta, the donut is faster even in the thight corner section.
Big bikes might be more 'comfortable' in groomed bike parks or mashing up a fire trail - but on proper tech trails they're slower. Too many comments on here run the line 'pros are stuck in their ways'. Rubbish. All options are tested - and it's increasingly clear that sizing 'down' is faster if you're an experienced rider.
But its now the NEW BENCHMARK in science and engineering when it comes to EWS bike design !
love it :-)
Out of curiosity, how tall are you, and what bike did you size down from?
Overtly long reach is a fad imo
Even if there is evidence both ways - clearly something is missing from the Pinkbike review team if the universal opinion there is that longer is better.
Anyway, do an article on the number of EWS pros that actually ride bikes within the size range recommended for their height by their bike sponsor. Would be interesting.
For your height, you could go either with a ML on the AM9, which has a 475mm reach, or a size L, with its 500mm reach. It’s all a matter of personal preference, and figuring what works best for your riding style and typical terrain.
I’m 180cm and lately I’ve been happy with reach numbers between 470 - 490mm. Above that and I start feeling too much like a passenger.
To go fast on an EWS track firstly needs boundless skill, strength and athleticism , then an ability to not loose speed which is through the corners and over tech.
A silly long Front Centre that is the centre of all Enduro_Bro fantasies only helps the less skilled keep the bike going straight down the steeps, it doesn't help you get around the corners quickly and exit the technical sections with retained momentum.
If the Pro's results and what they ride are not a good demonstration that reach numbers have gotten a bit out of hand than what evidence will it take to change the flavor of the coolaid?
That said, once I got mine replaced under warranty (rear) they have been rock solid since.