"Longer, lower, slacker." Those three words have become something of a cliché in how we talk about new bikes. Before we go any further, let me be clear, all three aspects are good progress. I don't think anybody would argue that even in the recent past bikes were too short, too high and too steep. So as product managers and their teams work to try and make their new bikes better than the ones they made before they tend to follow those three things.
Those product teams work in relative isolation from other brands - you don't think the engineers at Specialized want to show their hands to their counterparts are Trek, do you? It's a competition and it is pretty undeniable that if you make a bad bike or at least one significantly worse than your competitors, then your business is heading down the drain (you know who you are). So the result is that when the new bike gets passed to the marketing team, the first question is (or at least should be), "Why is this better than the old bike we were making?" You can picture the conversation, "Oh, well, we made it longer..." You know how the rest goes.
If we pause and consider the three elements, I want to make the argument that one of these adjectives is not fit for purpose. There is plenty of mileage in discussing how slack a head angle should be, or how low a bottom bracket can be, they are both important in determining how a bike behaves on the trail. Where I take issue with the triumvirate is "Longer." Answer me one question - why is a longer bike better? If you have been keeping up on bike launches, I would expect you to mention something about being more stable, faster maybe. Yet these descriptors are a nonsense - it's an empty argument. Why would you need a more stable bike when your current one feels pretty good already? And how do you measure stability? What does it mean?
This is where mountain biking's road-based roots show through. The first mountain bikes were basically whatever was lying around with a big handlebar and some fat tyres. Then came the adapted road bikes, more or less the same frame with a flat handlebar. During mountain biking's first epoch it is fair to say that geometry wasn't a huge consideration, things like not snapping, braking, and having suspension that worked, quite rightly, came to the fore. It is only more recently, when buying a new bike is far less of a lottery than it has ever been, that people started looking at the layout of the mountain bike and asking, "How could this be better?" Enter the race to "longer, lower, slacker."
While we stay talking in superlatives, we are staying firmly within the realm of marketing fluff. I believe that it is only when we get past this that we can start to really understand how a mountain bike is supposed to fit its rider. And for me, that is the most important word of all: fit. If you look to the road, those guys know precisely how a bike should fit the rider. If Chris Froome turns up to ride for your brand, you can bet he and his management will come with a precise specification of how he needs to be placed on the bike to perform at his optimum. The same goes for XC. For those disciplines the rider is in the saddle for the critical part of the racing and it is well-understood where the rider needs to be in relation to the bicycle and it needs to be millimeter perfect. When you start looking at more gravity-fed parts of cycling the simple truth is that there isn't the same level of detail or understanding available. To call it guesswork is probably a bit harsh, but going by the number of times "longer, lower, slacker" was repeated in 2017, it may not be too far from the mark. Until we are talking about fit as opposed to marketing vagueries, then we are still pissing in the shallow end.
So, how should your bike fit you? I spoke to a few people about this and there seems to be little consensus, so what I am about to lay out is an idea, a theory. It is based on riding a bunch of different bikes and a lot of time thinking about their different qualities, the positives and negatives and what they mean out on the trail. What it certainly is not is definitive. All I am sure of right now is that I have a clear idea of a range of reach values I want my mountain bikes to fall within, and I can put together at least a semi-coherent argument as to why. Well, maybe not even semi-coherent, that is for you to judge...
This all began for me with the two bikes I had in 2015. One was a Mondraker Foxy, the other an Ibis Ripley. If you are the type to sit and study geometry charts (I am, I'll admit that), then these are probably not two bikes that many people would choose in combination. The Mondraker was a medium, yet sported a full 473mm reach, paired to a 30mm stem. The Ibis was a large, the biggest bike in Ibis' range I could physically swing a leg (and a dropper post) over, but the reach was a very old-school 409mm with a 50mm stem bolted on. The rough calculation puts these two bikes at about 45mm apart in terms of reach, which in some ways is not much, but out on the trail, it became very apparent and significant.
The first part of my observation is very easy for you to repeat the next time you head out riding. When you reach the fun part, pay attention to where your sternum is in relation to the stem. Good riding position is fairly straight forward, your spine should be flat-ish, arms relaxed, not too straight or too bent, so they are ready to react to whatever the trail throws at you. When you're in this position you should notice that your sternum is just behind the stem, with a modern trail bike, this will leave you nicely behind the front axle. This is a good place to be, strong, relaxed enough to hold for extended period and with full control of the front wheel. Take time to think about this a few times and, if you're lucky enough, try it on a couple of bikes and you should find that this part of your riding stance is a constant, regardless of the bike you are on (this doesn't apply to dirt jump/pumptrack bikes in the same way).
Once I realised that this torso/arm position was a constant between both of my bikes, the next question is to look at how I was compensating between the two very different bikes. What I observed is that it was my hip angle was closing to keep my torso position constant on the shorter bike, although I also think my torso became slightly more upright on the shorter bike. If you look at racing shots of Aaron Gwin or Loic Bruni, it's clear to see that they keep their torsos relatively flat, and there are very few riders with such perfect form as that pair. Switching back to the Mondraker I realised that my hip angle on that bike was more open, putting me in a stronger position to react to the trail and creating less tension in my hip, which made the bike more comfortable on long descents. Back on the smaller bike, I tried focusing on the hip angle and ignoring my torso. Relaxing my hip angle to the same position I was riding on the Mondraker pushed my torso forwards, my sternum coming ahead of the stem, putting me in a very precarious position with all my weight over the front axle.
The next step was to take these observations and try them on several different bikes. The first and one of the most interesting bikes was a friend's large Mondraker Dune. That had a reach of over 500mm and for me, it was far too much. If I put my torso in my ideal position, the bike was so long that I could feel my hips coming over and ahead of the BB, in other words, it was stretching me too far out. Over the following year, I rode quite a few different bikes of different sizes, tried some different bikes and kept coming back to my arm and hip angles. After a while it became apparent that on a bike shorter than 450mm I could feel the additional stress it put through my hips and I was stuck choosing between compromising one part of my stance or the other.
So where does this leave me? Well, I'm a 5'9" rider with something like 29/30" inseam - in other words, I have short legs, hence a long torso for someone of my size. By focusing on the two angles I have arrived at the point where I consider myself to need a bike with a reach between 450mm and 475mm. I tried shorter and I tried longer - I spent a few days on a 480mm Orbea Rallon this summer on a job and it was close to being ok but didn't quite work. On more open, straighter terrain it felt ok, but as soon as we got too tight, natural switchbacks, it was simply too much bike for me to get through easily. Which is fine, at 5'9" the idea that I would be on an XL is ridiculous. After a couple of years on the Mondraker, adapting to the different demands of riding longer bikes, going back onto a bike with a 450mm reach, which is still relatively long by current standards, felt short, lively, playful, you can recalibrate your perceptions and I am still to find a true downside to these bigger bikes.
Taking a look at current bikes on the market, my preferences are clearly towards the more progressive end of things, although brands like Transition and Giant have nailed their sizing close to where I now believe a modern bike needs to be. On the flipside, it is here that I don't necessarily agree with what is being pushed by companies like Geometron and Pole. While I would like most companies to build bigger bikes, I think there is also a limit to how big we can and should go. My caveat here is that I do think Geometrons and the suchlike do have their place, I am certain that taller riders will need to ride bikes that smash past the 500mm reach barrier that many brands seem wary of, and they are leading the charge in that respect. I am also 100% certain that there are benefits to bigger bikes, but only to the point where the bike still fits the rider so he or she is able to enjoy that benefit. The 480mm Orbea is certainly more stable than the 450mm one I ordered, but it's not a usable benefit for me.
As I have already stressed, this is my theory. I have tested it on quite few different bikes and it seems to work for me. I hope at least this piece is a start in opening a discussion into how we talk about bike sizing. I now have a range of reaches that I consider proportional to my body size - I think the fact that it's a range is important, that within that range there is some scope for personal preference, but those preferences are based on the idea of how the bike fits me, not on marketing bullshit. There are still questions, Chris Kilmurray (Tahnee Seagrave and Greg Callaghan's trainer) stressed that, "Joint mobility, muscular strength and elasticity are very individual specific qualities", so he was not sure how generally applicable this is, that it may not be possible to derive a conclusive model of bike fit.
Even if I am right, I don't exactly know how this can be adapted into something useable for consumers or bike companies, at the end of the day I am a photographer/journalist, I don't have the time or resources to conduct a meaningful study into bike fit and I need to focus on things that will pay my rent. Maybe this is not the right way to be looking at this problem, and actually, I'm ok with that. What I hope is that we can move to a point where how a bike fits the rider is what we talk about. A wise, or at least grumpy, man once told me that bike companies need to move past "better" and talk about performance criteria for their bikes. I believe that fit should be at the forefront of that list.
My local is smooth groomed sandy clay with a reasonable helping of roots, so not really a lot to strike on, not crazy rocky gnarly things. I'd have to (personally) say the Reign is about the usable limit for how low BB's can get.
ZeroGee say what? Bay Area ain’t no east coast slow speed root/rock gardens as far as u can spin yo.
East coaster: Our trails are too rocky, bottom brackets are too low
West coast:
thumb.grindnetworks.com/hgmV-zT6JzgORakRYDJY0H-cFUk=/630x0/filters:format(jpg):quality(80):max_bytes(100000):sharpen(0.2%2C1%2Ctrue):strip_exif():strip_icc()/www.bikemag.com/files/2013/03/End1.jpg0.2%2C1%2Ctrue
blackowlmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/TunnelTrail_Mtb_SantaBarbara-2220.jpg
Exactly
Thats the thing, you just run a lower gear. Cadense is lower and as far as testing seems you dont lose that mutch in levrige thanks to the gears.
It would be nice to keep up the speed through the rough. Hey, I'm still glad to have the lower BB though...
In the DC region, for example, we're constantly pedaling up and down quick, short hills, so we don't have the long, uninterrupted downhills where we can keep our pedals flat and float over the rough stuff.
Somebody else mentioned ratcheting - it's a key skill out here.
Either way, it's not a strong complaint, but the East Coast does occasionally feel left out, especially given our population density and buying power. Maybe it's just perception, who knows...
It’s pretty unique. Much different than middle America, much different than the southern west coast, which is much different than the northern west coast.
It would be silly to deny that different bikes work better in different areas.
Uhhhhhh?
Shorter cranks handicap your power.
That’s why most downhillers don’t use 165 anymore.
Reach - I’m a big fan of it having increased in recent years, since the ~2015 model year bikes I’ve been able to get on mediums (that have always had the right length seat tube ~18”) for me being 5’10” and not feel cramped or end up with neck ache.
I see it like the difference between a classic sports car(jaguar e type) and a track car(Ferrari formula 1). The jag being more traditional geometry and the Ferrari being long low slack.
The jag feels lovely to drive, light steering, controllable accelerator, smooth ride.
The F1 car on the other hand is a pig to drive, not much grip unless your above 100mph, twitchy steering, pokey accelerator, every bump goes through your body.
The jag is for a driver of any ability that just loves the drive and appreciates cars. The jags limits are easy to reach and make every driver feel like a boss. The jag can be driven on most public highways.
The F1 car is for the skilled driver who wants to go flat out, push the limits, be the fastest and loves the adrenaline buzz. The F1 cars limits are hard to reach and make the average driver look like an idiot.
The F1 car can only be driven on race tracks.
The bike with a more moderate BB height might ride a little tall and perhaps even a bit twitchy but comes alive when you start to push it - like your Ferrari.
The super low bike feels great to average riders almost everywhere but give it to an experienced rider and they’ll push beyond the limits quickly - Jag.
But to step away from the analogy I’d say there are other benefits of having access to good cornering geometry during corners and not permanently in “cornering mode”. The bike is agile, line changes are rapid, it can be picked up, manualled, hopped with greater ease than a super low ‘barge’ of a bike. It doesn’t need a huge amount of speed to get off the ground. During slow speed sections the bike is quick to steer, nimble. You just need a little conviction to put it through a high speed corner.
Disclaimer: as I said I accept that B.B. drop is a good thing, until it’s not. To clarify 15mm or so is what I’m suggesting as an upper limit for a 160mm bike and I would probably do what I could to make something that low ride higher until I wanted it not to (and have done on two recent bikes).
I probably read the same article that @IllestT did and it was interesting stuff. My last road bike I had, I got an awesome deal on an Ultegra crankset because it was comparatively short (165mm I think?) and had zero issues riding with it. I was expecting it to feel wrong - I have long legs and am 6’ tall, always rode 175mm cranks - but I have always spun easily and pedalled in circles (from my early time-trialling years) so I’m sure this pedalling style helps. This makes perfect sense on a mountain bike where spinning and smooth technique is paramount to getting over rocks, roots and rollers. I don’t yet ride an oval ring but it may also make a lot of sense with shorter cranks. The power output loss you mention is probably(?) less relevant off-road where your cadence is constantly changing with variable terrain, compared with an extreme opposite like track racing where you want to wind up a big gear and sustain it for a period of time without having to worrying about trail features or gradient change effecting your rhythm.
Different tools for different jobs i suppose...
So I'm more than happy that LLS trend has made front ends longer in relation to seat tubes. I'm all for tall people getting long bikes, long droppers. I get it. Fine. Because that gives me opportunity to chose to go a size smaller, more stand over, longer post, or the other ways around, longer bike without being limited by seat post height. Whatever. Good! But going full retard with 460 stays, 500 reach 62 head angle on a fkng trail bike - really? Ok ok, if I look at BTR or Sick Bicycles, all cool, these dudes give great flavor great option, but i get itchy the moment someone starts to tell me a performance story, uses words like science, considering virtually NOBODY but top racers need that, I definitely don't.
@RBalicious I use the word biodiversity on purpose, I just forgot ""
I am still learning a lot by reading these articles as well as people's comments. So thanks for the lessons!
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biodiversity?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld
All I'm saying is being too big for your bike isn't really a racing disadvantage
Yep, just think of the 'tiny' bikes Peaty crushed on.
You could hear the rumblings of 'too long' in the PB commentator army rising for the last few months. This industry cracks me up.
I was in Les Gets in 2004 and saw Fabien's Kona. I think it was Kona front triangle (probably from a size massive Stinky), but that's about it. The back end looked homemade and even the forks had little to do with Marzocchi other than being black.
And yeah Peaty's, Brendan's and Marc's Oranges with the banana shaped swingarm weren't production - they were enormous!
I went harder than I've ever gone when I rented a 27.5'' L Santa cruz V10 last summer, from a life of riding short ass bikes.
The fun part was riding a mondraker dune a few weeks ago, I couldn't for the life of me do a proper wheelie on a size M, but trying someone else's size L I could wheelie perfectly fine.(It theoretically should have been the opposite, right?)
My next is likely to be a 29'' YT capra
That means imo it is logical to think that the distance between "horizontal lines" through handlebar and bb should always be the same on every bike for your perfect descending position.
Same of course goes for the distance between "vertical lines" through handlebar and bb, that is what you figured out in this article.
A bike with 460mm reach and 620mm stack is about the same mainframe size as a bike with 470mm reach and 600mm stack - assuming a 66°HA on both bikes.
If you really want to know how big the actual main frame (which determines your riding position at a given stem length+bar height) is, considering all the good bikes have basically the same HA, you should probably be comparing wheelbases independant from the bikes chainstay lengths.
For example (these numbers actually work out):
Bike 1 1227mm WB / 440mm CS / 470mm reach / 635 mm stack / 66°HA
Bike 2 1210mm WB / 430mm CS / 480mm reach / 600mm stack / 66° HA
One bike has 10mm shorter wheelbase. HA is the same. If you want to compare those frames sizes, in your mind, add 10mm to the WB of "bike 2" in order to make up for the difference in chainstay length.
Conclusion: Bike 2 has the bigger frame even though it has shorter reach.
I actually can't really stand people mindlessly throwing around reach numbers independant from the stack heights anymore. Especially not people reviewing bikes for a living. Can't blame the people on the forums though, they are just helplessly trying to compare bike sizes and find a fitting frame.
Then someone tells them a large Knolly Warden is longer than a large 2018 Intense Carbine because it has 5mm more reach when in fact the Carbines mainframe is actually about 30mm longer.
The first thing to note is that we are very able to accommodate small changes in size, say +/-15mm on reach with negligible impact on how the bike rides. So, being accurate to the nearest mm is not required.
But I've ended up recommending, 480mm reach for a 5'11" rider like myself, about 500mm for 6'2", 530mm for 6'6". Then 450mm at 5'9", 430mm for 5'5". To be honest I've built more bikes for taller riders, so am less confident about the smaller sizing.
But obviously this is a 'rule of thumb' and very dependent on other rider parameters, and specific to dynamic geometry of bike. Although the tolerance in sizing helps make it better than you'd think. My numbers also seem to agree with what a loots of the MTB media reviewers are telling me. So perhaps there's some science in there somewhere.
The other thing to note is that chainstay lengths should be proportional. I currently can't offer custom chainstay lengths (I'm working on it), but my 29" Murmur with 445mm stays is better for taller riders >5,10". The Swoop with 430mm stays is better for shorter riders.
A few truths:
-current longer (read correctly sized) bikes, are only say 5-10% longer than older bikes. It's an iteration, not night and day.
-longer bikes are not worse uphill,
-longer bikes go round corners as well, if not faster, but may require more user input;
-for longer reach, you need steeper seat angle to get correct pedalling position,
-any more?
Observation more then fact?
I'm currently on a XL 2017 Capra and have decided to order a new XL Nukeproof Mega 275 Factory which increases the reach from 458 - 515mm. Fingers crossed this helps.
First is that some people were saying that Unno frames (reach 455mm, IIRC) are short. Amazing. Let's not forget they come straight from a bike genius and the most influential guy on todays longer, lower, slacker geometry. (I highly recomend to listen his podcast for Vital)
The second is that many top brands (including Trek, SC, YT, Mondraker and Transition, the few ones I checked) sport longer reaches on their trail bikes than in their DH ones, wich is something I still can't wrap my head around.
To me this is reaching the top of the curve, right before people realize things went too far and take a couple steps back to stabilize in the sweet spot.
It does look like geometry is settling a little now with medium frames being 430-445 reach from many of the big brands and XL being close to 500mm if offered (trail / enduro bikes) head angles seem settled around 64-66 deg.
What I do have opposition to is so called 'companies' harping on about being disruptive and innovative because they are adding 50mm to usual reach figures and going to 62 degree head angles with seemingly no care as to if they are selling total crap - the ISP is that it's longer / slacker and that's it, nothing else, no clever suspension, no novel construction methods, just tripe.
As usual, bikes at the moment seem better than ever, and that goes for geometry too.
Seriously though I think you get used to what you are riding. My current bike is pretty stable at speed thanks to 446mm CS and 66HA. It's probably not the greatest on tight stuff but I live with it. It manuals like crap but I can't manual anyway so no loss. Reach is 441 so not massive but STA is slack enough to give me a reasonable seated position.
I think it's all a balancing game and hopefully we are almost at the point where we know the rules.
I am also getting a bit bored of it all.
Example: So if you go from a bike with a 430 mm reach and 100 mm stem, this gives you a total of 530 mm cockpit length (there might be a better term). If your new geo bike candidate has a 470 mm reach, you'd roughly end up with a 60 mm stem to get the same cockpit length (using the same bars). This way of estimating the reach/stem length has worked very well for me.
The only downside is that the twisty Shore trails are a bit tougher to deal with when swinging that long wheelbase around.
So yeah don't ignore the effect of where you put your feet. BB position doesn't tell the whole story. And don't forget about stack either. Higher grips give you more leverage to offset the longer front end and actually bring them closer to you again. On the rider end, it isn't just about body dimensions either. Flexibility matters too as well as how long you can hold a crouched position (which obviously also matters on whether you're riding a marathon or a 4X race). Straighter arms and legs may be more comfortable on smooth terrain (and/or smooth suspension) but the crouched position makes it easier to really follow the terrain. So that choice has an effect on the stack height you need and I'd say it may be better to find the reach after that. Though of course it will always be iterative.
I'm 6'6" tall with legs and arms, so the 500+ reach works well for me! But you need to be very fit in the upper corpse and arms to handle a Pole or Nicolai on twisty trails and need a wide bar!
Contrary to the known advantage, that you don't have any flashover feeling with the super long geometry, you have this feeling again with the super low 62,5 head angle, when you are hanging very much up front on your forearms and you are not super fit.
So maybe a bike around 500mm reach with higher stack is better in this case!
Have you checked other measurements to see what the actual change is? - Seat tube angle, stem length, bar height etc could all easily add up to 10mm reach or more, you may even have a shorter reach if your bar / fork is taller and it's the extra height that has cured your back issues.
Around 10mm change in reach is tiny and I can't imagine alone has made the difference to your riding. Think about it realistically.
We need to be realistic here though, if you feel your bike fit is off try to adjust your setup before buying a frame with 4% longer reach (I'm not saying the op did this as he moved to a different frame) - add / remove some stem spacers, move the saddle around etc - many people don't understand the relationship between bar height and reach.
The problem for me is bike manufacturers focus on on the longer,lower,slacker aspects, then assemble a bike with other variables such as bar with, tyre choice, crank arm length and acknowledge that customers will swap these out for their own prefered choices.
At 6ft, with a in seam of 32" I guess I should be on a large or Xl but with the supplied stem of 40mm or 50mm I often over reaching so a whole bike package might not be the best option. Which is why I buy a frame and build up.
The main point of the article is spot on the longer, lower, slacker argument has become overblown and distracting.
Oddly, on a mountain bike I end up with the opposite problem. I was riding a Large 2017 Santa Cruz Nomad and thought that I was good to go. Rode it for about 3 years and just adjusted to what I thought was normal. Then last year I bought a 2019 Trek Remedy 9.8. I intended to buy an 18.5 in frame but it wasn't available to demo so I had to settle for a 19.5 instead. I originally chose the 18.5 because the numbers were similar to the Nomad I was riding and as it turned out, the 19.5 was a MUCH better fit and still is. The reach on the Nomad was about 438mm and the reach on the Remedy is 455mm or just over a half inch longer. It made all the difference in the world for my riding posture and has balanced my ride out significantly.
Had I gone with the XL Nomad, I probably would have been much happier, but I never would have imagined that at 5'9" I would have needed an XL frame. Now that Nomad is up for sale so I can make space in my garage. LOL
I also love my "Old" geometry bike.
Depends on what terrain I'm riding, I feel more comfortable on my newer bike on descents, and vice versa.
There's plusses and minuses to anything.
Personally, I am not a fan of "low".
I have never ridden a bike that was really long and slack. My longest bike has a 1280mm wheelbase and just feels OK, Stack 670, reach 485. When descending for more than 2 minutes my muscles around hip and knee are in pain, because of the weird angles I am squatting in the bike.
For a more stretched out position I would need a XXlongest Geometron - but neithertheless I would have to bring my body in a way more lower position in the bike than comfortable.
What I want to say: physics don't change with the size of the rider. There is an ideal size (and weight) of a rider more than such of a bike.
I am planning to get a 29 but would go to about 455mm - 460mm to try a happy medium. I am about 5’9 (178cm).
Definitely going to do the hip position experiment next time out, see if that stacks up too!
I haven't experienced many different bikes, but when i bought my size L E29 i fell in love with the more planted, "inside" feeling when pointed downhill. I had a really oldshool 26" hardtail before that.
The E29 has 445 mm reach and a fairly long stem (~ 70 mm?) and i am quite sure my next bike is going to have more reach with a shorter stem.. Wich will put me somewhere around 470 - 490 mm of reach, maybe even 500?
So i guess i agree with you
Oh, and i want a shorter seat tube, and maybe shorter crank arms
but the inseam was correct
For example two guys, both 6' tall, but one is built like Chris Hoy and the other is built like Chris Froome.
Does upper body strength become a factor for how long the reach of a frame would be?
Or would the same size frame be recommended to both?
a few weeks ago i triend a friend size L kona and it felt great! so ever since then i have been seriously thinking of swapping it for a size L (plus money!!). i've been on the fence about the reach difference between the two (425mm vs 445mm), but to read that someone else has come to the same conclusion as me is comforting, although it means that i now have no excuse to NOT spend the extra cash!!!!
Also, why do we always reference the road frame when talking about the origins of MTB frame geo, but never mention BMX? I remember not so long ago when frame makers (and riders) were heavily influenced by BMX and 4X, and riders were sizing down for 'flickability'. I think a lot of what we are seeing today with trail bike geometry progression may be a recovery / rebound from that influence.
great article. definitely worth taking into consideration, but how does it apply your position in the saddle? i am 5'9" too (176cm) and i find a 445mm reach just about the limit on a bike like a Bronson size L, in the sense that in a out of the saddle position, i'm sure body position benefits from the more ample reach and relative wheelbase, but i find myself a little stretched out while seated. assuming i could shorten the stem or move the saddle forward, wouldn't that put me in a less than optimal position while pedalling?
You also don't say what stem length you run. At your height on a bike that size I am surprised that you are finding that as the seatangle shouldn't be too slack on that bike (which could be a cause of that feeling on some bikes).
If you start looking at the combined reaches of TT and stem on road bikes and XC race bikes, you start to realise that the total reach value for many of these new school bikes is hardly extreme in that respect. For instance, my road bike is 387mm reach with a 90mm stem, and that is before you factor in riding position, as being on the STIs adds even more to this total length for a seated riding position. So your bike is probably relatively conventional in those terms, so I would recommend trying to raise the bar height (stem spacers are less of investment than a new bar, but are detrimental to the overall reach, maybe also have a look at how much pressure is in your fork and the fore-aft balance of the bike) and maybe doing some yoga.
that's what i'm trying to figure out really.
either way, what you mentioned about flexibility resonates with me because, other than my age, i've never been too flexible (with my legs perfectly straight i can only reach down to about 15cm from my toes) and i'm sure being able to hinge correctly, apply correct arm and elbow position and stay correctly centered on the bike make all he difference.
the bronson size L i sat on (not demoed) could definitely work i'm sure but i think i would have to go with a 35mm stem and like you said a couple of spacers. it's just that trial and error comes at a price since there a virtually never any demos for these bikes around here. so i have to figure out if i want to "take the plunge" or not.
Anyone with those measurements on a bike with 515 reach and 666 stack? Looking at the Megatower XXL, I am bit worried that I’d be really stretched out while seated..
I understand the pressure for fresh content and how awkward it can be to take a red pen to a friend's work, but there is no excuse for publishing a piece that is so poorly edited.
1. The pros specially the DH pros are a conservative bunch. Not as conservative as roadies but conservative nontheless. If they really did test everything like most people believe then they would have figured out that longer bikes were better years ago! Greg Minnaar is a great example of this. He has been in the sport for ages and only now is admitting to finally having a bike that fits him! THIS IS GREG F...KING MINNAAR!!! DH was the last discipline after XC and Enduro to adopt bigger wheels is another example. This is why I find it hilarious when DH is considered the pinnacle of MTB!
2. A long bike makes you ride in the middle and allows you to weight both the front and the back evenly. I am 180cm and have a bike with 520mm of reach. It fits me like a glove. If I need to slide the back end I just shift my weight forwards a tad. A long bike allows you to get away with more stuff no doubt but so does full suspension or long travel or strong brakes or grippy tires. Ñone of those things prevent very good riding they just allow you to ride fast and/or harder terrain.
3. Is there such a thing as too long? Ofcourse there is! A 555mm reach XXL Nicolai would be too long for me just as my bike would be too long for someone shorter.
4. Some people prefer short bikes, just like some people prefer short chainstays. It makes the ride feel more sketchy, allows you to throw the bike around more, manual more easily. This new era of long bikes doesn't prevent you or anyone from riding a short bike all you need to do is size down.
My opinion is the following: If you like what you have great, stick with it. If you have tried a long bike and don't like it that is find too. However, if you have never ridden a long bike and chose your ride based on what Pro X or Y rides then just keep your mouth shut because you have no idea what you are talking about.
Rude? How so? Unless you consider calling roadies and DH conservative. If you felt I was rude to you personally then that wasn't my intention.
I understand your point of view and like I said before if you prefer a shorter bike (length is relative) then that is great. What I take issue is when you seem to indicate that 500mm reach bikes dumb down things or that pros don't run such bikes. Yes Mr. Minnaar's XXL V-10 has a reach of 480mm but again me point wasn't to say he was on a geometron like bike it was to say that you can't go on what the pros run seeing as they are less likely to go into wild experimentation.
I had the same problem as you initiatially with flat corners then I added an angleset to bring the head angle up to 63º and it made the bike much better.
Also stem size plays a part on frame size. At 180cm (5'11") I am on a 520mm reach frame with a 10mm stem but I could have chosen a 480mm reach and run a 50mm stem.
I would like to see seat tubes remaining short on most sizes and thus compensated with longer dropper posts. This would allow people to chose their reach rather than be stuck on a smaller size because the seat post is too high on a larger frame.
www.airdropbikes.com/blogs/news/longer-lower-slacker
I am about your height (5’11 1/2” -6’). My current bike has a reach of 431 mm ( Ibis HD3) and it rides really well. My old bike had a reach of 405mm ( HD) and it rode pretty well too. My dh bike has a reach of 470 mm (NS Fuzz) and it rides really nice, but I would not want the reach any longer than 470mm.
So I would steer you towards the size large YT Capra at 460mm versus the XL at 480 mm.
P.s. I have also ridden the Ibis Ripley mentioned in the article and had no problems riding that either.
www.peterverdone.com/forward-geometry
Now i have a 467 reach, 40mm stem and a much steeper seat tube. The distance from seat to the grips is nearly identical, but i have much more bike out in front of me. No need to get way back when it gets steep, you stay more centered and in control.