# Your bike is (probably) too big for you.



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Joe Lindsay wrote a great, well thought out and supported piece on this here.

I know I'm old and crusty and losing flexibility by the day. As such I tend to want a shorter/smaller/more upright position on the bike.

Which is pretty much the opposite of what the industry has been serving up the past few years.

In the article linked above Joe explains how we got here, and a bit of where we go from here.

Discuss.


----------



## fuzz_muffin (Dec 24, 2017)

I've been craving a shorter (reach) bike lately. Previous squish was 455 but with angle set and lots of bar rise, current is 470 (short headtube though) and I kinda hate it, but can never decide. 

Might be in my head, but watching Loic race world cups his style just looks different to most of the field. More upright, open chest, active legs and in control. Probs something to do with his sus setup too but I don't know.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

Backswept handlebars was the nail in the coffin. Nothing like that mixtie/townie feeling while riding good trails!

Just another guy who figured out what works for him and thinks he's enlightened.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

EatsDirt said:


> Backswept handlebars was the nail in the coffin. Nothing like that mixtie/townie feeling while riding good trails!
> 
> Just another guy who figured out what works for him and thinks he's enlightened.




So, you didn't read the whole thing, then?


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

All i had to see is this is how Lee McCormack fits bikes. It’s been discussed here many times before.

If it was someone else’s fit thoughts, I’d be happy to read them, but Lee has his way that doesn’t account for non standard people like myself.


----------



## andy f (Jan 13, 2004)

Lee's fit and riding position approach pushes my hamstring flexibility to the limit. I've never been so sore there after riding with him with my bike set up according to his methods (starting on the RipRow). I'm more comfortable and confident with my bike fit 1-2cm longer than my body RAD. I realize I give up some maneuverability this way but i'm ok with that.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

mikesee said:


> So, you didn't read the whole thing, then?


Nope. Scanned. 

Here's a thought. He brings up Rude riding a M as if it supports his presumption. It's no secret many pro's are willing to trade stability for responsiveness. Doesn't mean it's the right choice for your average 6" rider.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

I ended the OP with "discuss" and that was a legitimate offer. I want to hear what people have to say.

I come at this from a bigger picture perspective -- over the span of a few decades bikes went from too short to just right to too long to waaaaay too long. The tide is turning, finally.

I thought people would chime in with reasoned responses, anecdotes, this-happened-to-me-isms, etc...

I didn't expect knee jerk reactions impugning swept bar riders, nor blanket dismissals of the big picture that Joe so accurately laid out -- especially without even reading it.

I didn't expect an all-out attack on Lee. I don't know him, never met him, and am not purporting that his methods are the answer.

Is this what has become of civil discussion? Don't like the message, troll or slander the messenger?


----------



## fuzz_muffin (Dec 24, 2017)

EatsDirt said:


> Nope. Scanned.
> 
> Here's a thought. He brings up Rude riding a M as if it supports his presumption. It's no secret many pro's are willing to trade stability for responsiveness. Doesn't mean it's the right choice for your average 6" rider.


I see this sentiment thrown around a lot. "what's good for pros is not good for Joes".

Thing is, what evidence is there to support this? I certainly have not seen any, it's all just thoughts and ideas.

My partner is definitely on too long of a bike, not her fault though. Manufactures have simply killed off shorter reach sizes. Next frame might even have to be a modified current CF frame or something custom.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

EatsDirt said:


> Nope. Scanned.
> 
> Here's a thought. He brings up Rude riding a M as if it supports his presumption. It's no secret many pro's are willing to trade stability for responsiveness. Doesn't mean it's the right choice for your average 6" rider.



A thought back at you: Read the article with the closest thing that you can get to an open mind. And _then_ comment.


----------



## Bacon Fat (Mar 11, 2016)

Most of my riding is flat twisty trails, no sustained ups or down. ETT is the best numbers for me to judge fit as I spend most of my time seated. If I was to base my size off RAD, I will be sitting way to up right. Currents bike reaches are way too long and ETT is way to short with the trend for super steep SA and slack HA. I think 2017s was a good time, little bit longer but not crazy long. 480 reach on a XL 650 ETT, 1200 WB

Today's bikes are build for fire roads up and Enduro down.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

mikesee said:


> A thought back at you: Read the article with the closest thing that you can get to an open mind. And _then_ comment.


I could do that, but then I'd have to read more drivel on RAD, how geo has changed, and what certain cherry picked industry people have said to support the authors click-bait title.

If you need me to admit I read where he said something like "unique needs for different riders" then yea, I read that. Neat article.


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

mikesee said:


> I ended the OP with "discuss" and that was a legitimate offer. I want to hear what people have to say.
> 
> I come at this from a bigger picture perspective -- over the span of a few decades bikes went from too short to just right to too long to waaaaay too long. The tide is turning, finally.
> 
> ...


I'll comment on Lee: I know Lee personally, and I've taken clinics from him. I've also done a fit by him to the point it made my bike feel too comfortable and ended up having to buy new handlebars and stems. Not fun, and unnecessary. 

There are other people who do bike fitting who don't necessarily agree with Lee, and others who do. It would be nice to get other perspectives rather than the same thing Lee has been saying for over a decade.

From my perspective, if I had to constantly size down, I would be on a XS or a kids bike. Some bike brands don't even make a bike small enough for me by Lee's standards. i've done the XS before, and I've ended up hurting my hips by riding something too small, and spending a lot of time in PT. So whenever I see Lee next to a bike fit, I do immediately dismiss it. He's been saying the same thing for over 10 years, before the long/low/slack thing happened. And while I like Lee, this feels like his fit needs to be adapted to modern geometry.


----------



## Blatant (Apr 13, 2005)

I read the article in its entirety. Nicely written. On first blush, it seems like advertorial content for Ridelogic.

I tend to somewhat agree that geo has gotten too extreme, but IMO mostly in the long aspect of long-low-slack. I’ll take about as slack as I can get, as much stack as I can get, but I want my reach under 500.

I am 6’2, skinny and mostly limbs. I have a lot of respect for Lee McCormack. Hell, I bought one of his books a couple decades back when I was still seriously racing BMX. But I’ve found RAD to not be effective for taller humans. By his measurements, which I have done, my bike would be comically small. Like, unrideably small.

I imagine it works much better for those in the middle of the height bell curve.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Long reply... get comfortable.

I disagree with a few concepts and conclusions.

My least favorite thing about the article is that he spends the whole first half of the article intentionally making alarmist statements. These parts of this article sound like they were written by a 70+ year old guy who's lost his mojo and stuck on old thinking. My eye was twitching the whole time and I didn't even want to finish the article... I've heard this music before.

*Intro and "how we got here"*

All this talk about Reach without ever once mentioning STA, Stack, stem length, handlebar width, front center, rear center, etc. Only mentions BB height a couple of times (which in some cases isn't that different today).

With modern bikes the Reach gets longer, stem gets shorter. All for the better! Instead of long stems and narrow handlebars where you turn your whole upper body with the handlebars (ish), the stem is shorter and your hands are now in-line with the steering axis of the fork. Mountain bikers across the board seem to like this setup.

Serious question: If we knew more about geometry at the time, instead of making a knobby tired bike with road bike geometry, what would a 90's MTB with 26" wheels and rim brakes look like with "modern" thinking in the geometry department?

Serious question #2: If McCormack had spent his 20+ year career working with "modern geometry" bikes, what would he think about 90's bike geometry and fit? Would the tables be turned?

*Thankfully he finally got down to some relevant content in section two and three: "Fit failed MTBers" and "What's the solution". *

Serious question #3: If you have the "wrong" tires, tire pressure, suspension setup, fit setup, etc. on your bike for your riding style *or* local terrain that causes you to ride a certain way or prevents you from riding a certain way, could it impact your impression of the bike, fit, geometry, etc? Answer: yes.

What I don't get: He's talking about his current Ibis Ripley with SQ labs handlebars (to get the hand position in-line with the steering axis) and then says in technical slow speed terrain that a Small frame (he's 5'9") would handle better than his Medium. Is this just as dumb as saying you want to ride a XC bike to the top and a DH bike to the bottom? OK, so a shorter wheelbase that's more maneuverable and lighter is better in slow speed tech?! Shocker. This DOES NOT mean your bike is too big for you. Let him jump on that Small and descend high speed chunk, or spend all day pedaling it on mixed terrain. How awesome is your Small now??

The last couple of sentences reference Richie Rude (pro Enduro racer) and how he's almost 6' tall and riding a Medium Yeti SB150. I'm not a fan of comparing the needs of pro XC, Enduro, or DH racers to average riders. There are so many variables and needs that apply to them that don't apply to the average trail rider. It's a terrible comparison in most cases, this one included.

Is your current bike too big?? NO. Where are all the forum threads of people complaining that their bike is too big? Was the standover clearance of your 90's bike terrible? Yes. Doesn't that mean that it was too big by modern thinking?

Personally I have come to realize that my old bikes were WAY too short in the Front Center department. The front wheel was way too close to me and I'd go OTB when going over a big log or down a steep technical feature. Thankfully that is a thing of the past. *Oh BTW I'm 6'3" and I've never ridden a bike that was too big. *

Overall this is just typical big media style writing where it's more about click count than actual content or useful conclusions. There is some good info in there, and some of the conclusions may prove to be correct (time will tell), but I won't be clamoring to read his next article.

(I have many more thoughts on the subject but wanted to keep it short.  )


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

This is a topic I've been thinking about a lot lately, as I'm trying to figure out what size frame to buy for an upcoming build.

When I actually measured my RAD using the method he shows in THIS video, it came out to 895mm. And then I measured it again, and again, and again (at least 5-10 times). Slight changes in the width, of my arms, and angle of the wrists changed my RAD by a meaningful amount, even as I was shooting for repeatability. But if you average all my measurements... my RAD is probably somewhere right around ~875-880mm.

So far... I'm somewhat inclined to believe the theory, at least for people with average-ish proportions (kind of like BMI is approximately statistically correct for the population, but may not work for specific individuals). My current bike I've long believed to be somewhat too small for me. When I ride long downhills, I find a tightness in my shoulders/upper back, like what I get if I hunch my shoulders down a bit. And on those long downhills runs, I have the feeling that I wish the bike let me stretch out a bit more.

When I measure my current bike (2018 Kona Process 153 in size L) using the method shown above (with the string), I see that my bike is maybe ~1in or so too small. So the measurements, and my gut feel seem to be correlating at least to some degree.

I dusted off my high school trig, and calculated all the various things that change the RAD (spacers under the bars, handlebar rise/sweep, stem length, etc). Its been interesting to play around with numbers, and find that I legitimately can fit on an L, or XL of most bikes depending on which bar and stem I throw on them.

Anecdotally, I also added in RAAD. And found that for my height (6'1", 185cm), on any modern size L or XL bike frame that I've been looking at (my spreadsheet has 26 bikes in each size, so over 50 model/size combinations), that I can't get a bike with a RAAD of 58 degrees. Which would mean that every bike available right now, fits me like he says a cross country bike should.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

EatsDirt said:


> I could do that, but then I'd have to read more drivel



Ah, I see -- you're incapable of opening your mind to gather any new evidence.

Carry on.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

Blatant said:


> But I’ve found RAD to not be effective for taller humans. By his measurements, which I have done, my bike would be comically small. Like, unrideably small..


Ditto that and most of your other points.

For me personally moving up to a longer reach bike from what were normal numbers not too many years back was revelatory. All this room to move around and maneuver and not having to be in this very specific window to not upset the bike. With each successive new bike purchase came longer reach numbers and I was always hemming and hawing whether that would work for me but each time it's opened up new levels of control. The caveat being the ability to lift the front end off of slow speed drops... takes away more body English but that's about the only downside. 

Same for wheelbase. Especially since starting to add some rear center onto how long front centers have gotten. I'm of the opinion that short stays will be looked at as a weird fad eventually. It's been my personal experience they simply don't do what I thought they did. 

Now wheel base and head angle I think start to become terrain specific. 64/64.5/ head angle is about perfect for me. However, just coming back from my annual Moab trip where the riding is much different than my high speed, turnblasting, hero dirt stuff out here. I felt the longer wheelbase was a little less advantageous and of course with all the techy rock roll ins and stuff the slacker the head angle the better. 

In conclusion I still feel like mountain biking is progressing from the road bike geo it once was. I have no desire to go back. 

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

stripes said:


> I'll comment on Lee: I know Lee personally, and I've taken clinics from him. I've also done a fit by him to the point it made my bike feel too comfortable and ended up having to buy new handlebars and stems. Not fun, and unnecessary.
> 
> There are other people who do bike fitting who don't necessarily agree with Lee, and others who do. It would be nice to get other perspectives rather than the same thing Lee has been saying for over a decade.



I've always looked at bike fitters with a skeptical eye, largely because while they can each give you umpteen great reasons for why what they're suggesting is the One True Way, they don't often agree in their conclusions.

Sort of like religion.

The solution is almost always to find what works for you through trial and error, and by gathering many opinions before buying anything new.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

WHALENARD said:


> starting to add some rear center onto how long front centers have gotten. I'm of the opinion that short stays will be looked at as a weird fad eventually.


I'm learning something from these last few posts -- yours, Blatant's, OneSpeed's, and Ocn's.

That "weird fad" seems to be fading hand in hand with the relevance/prevalence of climbing tech trail or descending anything slow/techy enough to be thought of as trialsy. When climbing fireroads or doubletracks -- or shuttling -- CS length matters not. Descending at mach chicken where the answer is usually "go faster and plow" and short stays aren't important. 

Horses for courses, sure. My preference is toward trails where 10mm of CS length makes a massive difference. I also tend to see far, far, far fewer people on these trails.

FWIW, I still think your sig is one of the best things ever written on the innernetz.


----------



## Darth Lefty (Sep 29, 2014)

I think it's easier to sell a medium guy a bike labeled Large than Medium whether it's the right size or not.


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

I've been looking at bikes to replace my 2017 Bronson v2. What amazes me is that looking at geometry charts, newer bikes are basically a size larger. My medium Bronson has 425 reach, while newer bikes have 440 to 450, which equates to a Bronson v2 size large. And most of the other measurements are quite similar apart from seat tube angle, which in my opinion doesn't affect fit because I'm not seated during the important parts of the ride. It seems a bit nuts and I'm debating getting a size small for my next bike. Maybe next year I can actually demo something.

The thing is, when I got my Bronson v2, it was a lot longer and slacker than the bike I had before it. I think the industry has found a limit to this stuff and probably went over it a bit.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

kpdemello said:


> I've been looking at bikes to replace my 2017 Bronson v2. What amazes me is that looking at geometry charts, newer bikes are basically a size larger. My medium Bronson has 425 reach, while newer bikes have 440 to 450, which equates to a Bronson v2 size large. And most of the other measurements are quite similar apart from seat tube angle, which in my opinion doesn't affect fit because I'm not seated during the important parts of the ride. It seems a bit nuts and I'm debating getting a size small for my next bike. Maybe next year I can actually demo something.
> 
> The thing is, when I got my Bronson v2, it was a lot longer and slacker than the bike I had before it. I think the industry has found a limit to this stuff and probably went over it a bit.


How tall are you?


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

5'8", stocky build


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

mikesee said:


> A thought back at you: Read the article with the closest thing that you can get to an open mind. And _then_ comment.


My comment on Rude's bike size was actually relative to the discussion you're looking to start. 

To the point of a few other commenters... isolating one dimension without considering the sum of the parts is kinda silly.


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

EatsDirt said:


> To the point of a few other commenters... isolating one dimension without considering the sum of the parts is kinda silly.


Comparing my bronson v2 to a revel rascal, the geometry chart for a medium bronson is almost identical to a small rascal, apart from seat tube length and height. Even stack is similar, maybe 5mm difference.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

kpdemello said:


> 5'8", stocky build


Yeah I am the same, realistically bike size has nothing to do with ones weight though. There is no way Id think about riding a size Small modern bike even a santa cruz. I have Size Large 2014 Giant Trance(440 reach) and a size M 2011 Anthem(410 reach) and the Anthem is basically impossible for me to ride after being on modern size M(both with a 450mm reach) , the trance is small but doable.


I think its a ton easier to adapt to reach than ETT. The issue with a small ETT is while seated it just feels so bad if its to small. I also would rather have long bike with a 35mm stem, than a short bike with a longer stem.


----------



## RacerLex (Jan 20, 2010)

Niner is right there with Yeti on slow-walking the adoption of long-low-slack. So they must not be drinking the kool-aid either.

If a bike manufacturer is researching/developing their bikes based on trails in Colorado, they may conclude a different design than a company doing this out of Virginia. Which one is right?

On the same trail, there are points where I would prefer the design of a Transition Spur, and other points where I'd like an SB115. I've ridden old-school rigid singlespeeds on the same trails that I've ridden modern full suspension 1x12's. So what?

There is no one-geometry fits all. Some people are easy influenced by magazine/expert reviews and don't believe their own experiences.

Are people riding the wrong size bike? What's the right size? If they are riding pain free and smiling along the way, the bike is sized perfectly.


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

I think height alone is not a great measure. I might have t-rex arms while you have orangutan arms. I have always thought my bronson v2 felt too long when sitting on it, but it feels right while standing.

We should keep in mind too that a lot of this is adjustable with bar sweep and stem size. I just swapped a 60mm stem for a 40mm stem on my wife's bike and it made the fit way better for her. That's almost a whole size down in reach.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

RacerLex said:


> Niner is right there with Yeti on slow-walking the adoption of long-low-slack. So they must not be drinking the kool-aid either.
> 
> If a bike manufacturer is researching/developing their bikes based on trails in Colorado, they may conclude a different design than a company doing this out of Virginia. Which one is right?
> 
> ...



yeah modern geo does nt really do well on rolling terrain, but i think bike from 5-10 years ago were just to small. 

I live in Vermont not but I am from Pittsburgh and lived in SLC and CO as well. Pittsburgh riding is way more rolling than either of them and steepest riding out of the 4 is vermont but Vermont CAN be more rolling than Utah or Colorado.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

kpdemello said:


> I think height alone is not a great measure. I might have t-rex arms while you have orangutan arms. I have always thought my bronson v2 felt too long when sitting on it, but it feels right while standing.


I mean I just assume I am going to run 35mm stem with swept back bars on any bike I ever get......

I think I do have long arms and super short inseam, kind of like gorilla.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

mikesee said:


> *That "weird fad" seems to be fading hand in hand with the relevance/prevalence of climbing tech trail or descending anything slow/techy enough to be thought of as trialsy.* When climbing fireroads or doubletracks -- or shuttling -- CS length matters not. Descending at mach chicken where the answer is usually "go faster and plow" and short stays aren't important.
> 
> Horses for courses, sure. *My preference is toward trails where 10mm of CS length makes a massive difference. I also tend to see far, far, far fewer people on these trails.*


FWIW I love short chainstays and tech climbs. We don't have big mountains but we have plenty of challenging punchy climbs locally. You know the kind you only clean 50% of the time, or less, no matter how many times you do it. It just requires the perfect line, technique, and perfect timing. Not easy to repeat accurately from one day to the next. I love tight/tree-lined/benched singletrack, or rocky staircases (up or down), or really any kind of tech challenge. Still learning new tricks. 

*Back on topic:* the article did touch on the fact that bike geometry (aka capability) has a direct effect on trails being built and vice-versa. I wonder how much of this topic is influenced by modern machine built flow trails vs. old school hiking/deer trails? For sure things are different depending on the bike, terrain, and rider. 

A buddy of mine made the argument recently that geometry had progressed as much as it could and that bike manufacturers would start to retract and have "less extreme" geometry, similar to the mentality in the article, and I disagree. I argued that "modern geometry" is really only a few years old and as technology (frame design) progresses it will push other technologies and with the current fast-paced rate of MTB evolution it will be 10+ years before we figure out if we've hit the limits or not. 

I think we're just at the beginning of the "modern era" now that we are finally rid of road bike geometry.


----------



## BadgerOne (Jul 17, 2015)

One of the problems with Lee's sizing recommendations is that reach is less consequential with modern geometry than it was with the long-standing traditional geo. The reason is simple - dramatically steepened STAs reduce ETT length a great deal. Longer reach and steep STAs help keep that larger sweet spot for the rider to employ while still keeping the bike well behaved in more diverse conditions. Lee's sizing recommendations don't account for this change. A living example is my two hard tails. One has a reach of 450, 72.5 STA, and an ETT of 633. My other has a reach of 475, a 77 STA, and an ETT of 626. Seat to bars is shorter on the bike with longer reach. Just another thing to consider.


----------



## Darth Lefty (Sep 29, 2014)

If you don't like LLS the industry will be happy to sell you a road bike and the markup on those has to be way higher than MTB's, have you seen what it costs to get one with hydraulic brakes?


----------



## OldMike (Apr 30, 2020)

Read the article and seen a Vid some time ago on this as well. Don't totally understand all f it, but @ 5'`0.5" my S4 2021 SJ seems perfect.......


----------



## wschruba (Apr 13, 2012)

*OneSpeed* said:


> [...]
> 
> Serious question: If we knew more about geometry at the time, instead of making a knobby tired bike with road bike geometry, what would a 90's MTB with 26" wheels and rim brakes look like with "modern" thinking in the geometry department?
> [...]


Serious answer: They'd look a lot like those early mountain bikes, I suspect...which had more in common with cruisers/working bikes than road bikes. I own a Trek 850 that I bought from another collector, and had a Diamondback Ridge Runner that I had picked out of the 'trash'. The only thing that is really missing is that the cranks are straight in-line with the seat tube, which is rather set back. A "modern" bike would have the cranks 30-40mm set back. Both bikes, with period appropriate stems/handlebars (bullmoose bars/ equivalent) wind up with the grips roughly lined up with the steering axis. No rowing the body here, to turn at slow speed. The only thing that I would knock against them is that they have rather low stack height, but then, they were meant to be used with quill stems (and a Nitto dirt stem is LONG). Maybe the handlebars wind up a bit lower than I'd like for casual riding, but then, they're not tremendously different from an off-the-peg modern XC bike, either. Neither is particularly 'long' for the size, but that's because neither is a 'square' frame like a road bike, either.

But then, they didn't go that way over time, did they? I suspect for the same reason everyone starting riding rolled-down road rims: someone started winning on something different, so everyone rushed to that.

Anyway, I read the article. I have nothing really to add that hasn't already been said; it's easier to make a smaller bike fit well than one that's too big, but that's not optimal in the other direction, either.


----------



## brentos (May 19, 2006)

I'm 5'11", 34" inseam. So long legs for my height.

I owned a 2008 Medium that tried to kill me on multiple occasions...it just NEEDED to pitch me over the bars, I'm not really a crappy tech rider either.

From that point on, I went with Large bikes...and in some cases, XL (the OG Ripley). 

If I still lived in Utah, I think I'd love the new geo. Long ups, long downs. Now I'm in a great riding area in the midwest (tight, chunky tech in my new town), and have ridden a wide variety of bikes. The trails aren't easy, but I've been surprised that a 2017 Spark RC, Large, with 120mm fork is the best tech bike I've ridden. Yes, I know how crazy this sounds, but it's just...true.

I now find myself really reluctant to move on to a longer bike. I just can't find the places to open it up and let it run.


----------



## Blatant (Apr 13, 2005)

wschruba said:


> Anyway, I read the article. I have nothing really to add that hasn't already been said; it's easier to make a smaller bike fit well than one that's too big, but that's not optimal in the other direction, either.


I don’t understand your references in the unquoted portion. As for the quoted portion, with modern bikes, I’d say the exact opposite is true.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

*Any time this topic comes up people mention riders that fit their narrative. They bring up Rude who falls within Yeti's recommended height for the medium he rides. They don't bring up Jesse Mellamed who is 5'7" and also rides a medium, who is at the shorter end of the recommended range for that size. 

Also, this article is redundant as this topic has been done to death. I guess Outside is just recycling years old articles from Pinkbike now.*


----------



## TXNavy (Apr 7, 2004)

I know they like writing cycling stories every other month, but I read Outside for cycling about as seriously as I shop at Walmart for bikes.


----------



## WillDB (Jul 15, 2020)

I've noticed how fit has changed over the years.

Bike fit is incredibly personal. Bike fitters rarely ever account for age, past injuries, arthritis, joint/flexibility problems, _etc._ Like Mike said, you'll find your fit with a lot of trial and error. Take note on what works and what doesn't. Experiment. What works for two folks of similar height/proportions can be very different. Ride and see.


----------



## KobayashiMaru (Apr 25, 2020)

mikesee said:


> Is this what has become of civil discussion? Don't like the message, troll or slander the messenger?


Sadly, yes.

Regarding geometry and its trends... The Grim Donut. If The Grim Donut is the evolution of modern bikes, what will The Grim Donut to The Grim Donut look like? I'm too scared to imagine.


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

mikesee said:


> I've always looked at bike fitters with a skeptical eye, largely because while they can each give you umpteen great reasons for why what they're suggesting is the One True Way, they don't often agree in their conclusions.
> 
> Sort of like religion.
> 
> The solution is almost always to find what works for you through trial and error, and by gathering many opinions before buying anything new.


You asked my opinion. LLB’s fit method is overused, and dated. There’s more than enough threads on his unscientific method of fitting, and quite a few people it doesn’t work for, despite his claims. 

The same could be said for other online fit “gurus”, because they’re not. Every person is different, and this isn’t really worth yet another thread about it. 

If we want to compare all the different fit types, cool. That would be an interesting discussion. 

@mikesee: I really like your posts here, but I’m not sure why people like the Outside magazine author latch onto LLB’s fitting like it’s gospel. That’s something I’m curious about, especially given modern bike geometry.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

kpdemello said:


> I've been looking at bikes to replace my 2017 Bronson v2. What amazes me is that looking at geometry charts, newer bikes are basically a size larger. My medium Bronson has 425 reach, while newer bikes have 440 to 450, which equates to a Bronson v2 size large. And most of the other measurements are quite similar apart from seat tube angle, which in my opinion doesn't affect fit because I'm not seated during the important parts of the ride. It seems a bit nuts and I'm debating getting a size small for my next bike. Maybe next year I can actually demo something.
> 
> The thing is, when I got my Bronson v2, it was a lot longer and slacker than the bike I had before it. I think the industry has found a limit to this stuff and probably went over it a bit.


How about ETT of both old and new bike?


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

It is a good article but it is really based on the opinion of one person. One person who is very confident in his opinion and one person who is selling a bike fit method. Those things make me nervous.

I have been involved in the sport long enough and at a high enough level to know that there is no experts. Some people have more experience than others but nobody "knows" anything.


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

It’ll probably work for some and not for others— as do/not the paradigm fitting techniques.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

I'm 5'11", 33 inseam and a neutral ape index. I find for me an 18" frame and a 24"ishTT are perfect for me. As for geo, I think it's jumped the shark, for myself and the trails I ride which are not flow. I purposely searched out a aluminum GG Smash instead of the newer carbon bike because the older frame suited my riding. Another thing about older bikes is that components I wanted weren't available at the time. When I designed and ordered my first low, long and slack full suspension frame in 2005, I went with a 23.75 TT as a compromise because the shortest stem was an Azonic 75mm shorty. As soon as Thomson came out with their 50mm stem I was ordering a new front triangle with a 24"TT. That bike now sports a 40mm stem. I still ride the crap out of that bike because it's so nimble.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

i figured this thread would have some non-aligned opinions!

mtb frame design has gone to far and not far enough. there now i fit in w everyone!

they havent gone far enough:

rear centers should change w reach otherwise only one size of that frame is properly designed.

at 6'6" i can now find a bike with enough reach, i just cant find one with enough stack.


they went too far:
hta has gone to slack. if you need 62.5 degrees because 64 is too steep and makes your trails unsafe to ride, then you need to be looking for a place to check in for therapy.

any bike that wants you to put weight on the bars to weight the front end for normal operation is an unbalanced bike! except for the guy who is riding a 62.5 degree hta out of necessity. that dude is actually standing on his head all the way down. so he has to put his weight on his bars!!!

sta - when you stand to pedal and realize your already standing (dropper post required).



2021 epic evo, 2022 top fuel. (medium to large size) these are fast fun bikes and i think they have it dialed geo wise. they run up the hill and back down as quickly as possible and fit just about any trail you want to go on. add more travel and you have the fuel ex. if they only just had diff rear centers over the sizes and more stack at the big end then the frame evolution would be over. except for niche narrow focused bikes


----------



## DRS CCC (Dec 5, 2013)

I'll admit that my bike is probably too big for me. But that's because I'm 5'6" on the cusp of a small/medium and didn't have a chance to demo due to COVID-19, so I sized up. But if I have to read one more thing about Lee's RAD method I'm going to go crazy. Somehow his singulair opinion on big sizing has become 'gospel'.

And the Richie Rude and Jack Moir sizing down 'fact' that gets repeated ad nauseam anytime the topic of bike sizing comes up also drives me nuts. There are plenty of professional riders that do the opposite and choose to size UP. As someone mentioned earlier, Jesse Melamed is 5'7" and rides a Medium. His teammate, Remi Gauvin at 5'10" sizes up to the large. Damien Oton and Remi Metallier are 5'6" and rides mediums. Yoann Barelli and Adrien Dailly are 5'7/8" and size up to larges. There are plenty of examples of sizing up as there are down. It's almost as is fit and feel play a role.


----------



## Monty219 (Oct 26, 2020)

I ride bikes with 470, 490, and 525 reach. Each suits their purpose quite well and as others have mentioned, many other geo variables come into play to make for a good fit. The three bikes don’t all have the same fit dimensions but i have worked out a way to make all 3 very comfortable. I’d be interested to see what recommendations a professional fitter would make for me but haven’t been convinced its worth it since I’m perfectly comfortable. If that ever changes I’ll certainly consider paying for a fit.

And thoughts on the article: the author makes a lot of sweeping generalizations that don’t apply to me, i got about half way through and had to stop reading because it was too annoying.


----------



## TraxFactory (Sep 10, 1999)

Mazeltov! Im 6'4"

For me its finally a bike that fits.
I've measured my RAD, compared bikes geo from my last decade of riding over 8 frames in every measurable aspect available to me. Friends think im nuts.

Im lovin the longer reach, but i dont go crazy long, like a geometron, pole, mondraker etc. . I know what my body tolerates and how to squeeze the most outta this 56 year old sack of bones.

I also know my capabilities on the trails i ride and what works best, what i enjoy the most. I think it would be hard to translate all that into bike fit. RAD has been real close to my personal selections of late as i usually end up measuring RAD after my purchase, since it was new to me.

I thinks its one of the better starting points for bike selection if you have no idea.


----------



## xcandrew (Dec 30, 2007)

*OneSpeed* said:


> Was the standover clearance of your 90's bike terrible? Yes.


Stand over clearance on my 18" (=medium) '93 Stumpjumper hardtail is far better than any modern bike that I've had an interest in, and that's with fork that is an inch longer than stock and tires 1/4" bigger than stock. It's about 740mm with the longer fork and bigger tires. A Epic Evo that would fit me is 781mm standover, about 40mm higher. Make sense because my '90s bike has a much lower bottom bracket, similar short head tube, and much shorter fork axle to crown (even with the longer than stock fork), which more than compensates for less slope in the top tube. Can't use the very back of the top tube for standover anyway because the tip of the seat is in the way. You at 6'3" must have been getting a much different '90s bike in geometry than I was the medium size to have worse standover then than now.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

LMN said:


> It is a good article but it is really based on the opinion of one person. One person who is very confident in his opinion and one person who is selling a bike fit method.


I agree. I mean if you spent a decade touting your fit method, designed income generation around it, staked your rep on it…you’d be hard pressed to one day just go, “You know what, I was wrong…”

Which is the problem. Pride and consequence.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

Fuse6F said:


> i figured this thread would have some non-aligned opinions!
> 
> mtb frame design has gone to far and not far enough. there now i fit in w everyone!
> 
> ...


Totally agree on rear center. Short chain stays are cool until your front center is 1.9x the rear. There has definitely been a harder push on some geo measurements with a lesser focus on the side effects on others, particularly when it comes to various sizes. I believe Pivot actually does alter the CSL by size, anda scant few others.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

DRS CCC said:


> I'll admit that my bike is probably too big for me. But that's because I'm 5'6" on the cusp of a small/medium and didn't have a chance to demo due to COVID-19, so I sized up. But if I have to read one more thing about Lee's RAD method I'm going to go crazy. Somehow his singulair opinion on big sizing has become 'gospel'.
> 
> And the Richie Rude and Jack Moir sizing down 'fact' that gets repeated ad nauseam anytime the topic of bike sizing comes up also drives me nuts. There are plenty of professional riders that do the opposite and choose to size UP. As someone mentioned earlier, Jesse Melamed is 5'7" and rides a Medium. His teammate, Remi Gauvin at 5'10" sizes up to the large. Damien Oton and Remi Metallier are 5'6" and rides mediums. Yoann Barelli and Adrien Dailly are 5'7/8" and size up to larges. There are plenty of examples of sizing up as there are down. It's almost as is fit and feel play a role.


I don't know about Rude...but Moir said he sized down because he felt that he could not get the XL around the turns fast enough...so he went with a Large. Also he's on a Canyon...one company that still hasn't gotten on the LLS train.

Here he is on his too small large. He's also on a Pike.






As for RAD...I'm pretty spot on with Lee's formula...so I guess it works for me.


----------



## jacksonlui (Aug 15, 2015)

Although many don't agree with LLB's fit method for bike sizing, the RAD and RAAD are good tools to help you compare a bike that you feel comfortable in. Sizing varies so much between brands, it's good to have a way to normalize things. Would be good to have another tool which incorporates front center, CS, WB, etc.. to determine a bike's sweetspot size.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

*OneSpeed* said:


> *Oh BTW I'm 6'3" and I've never ridden a bike that was too big.*


I am 6’3 as well and no, never been on a bike too big. I am curious as to what that feels like.

I do think better leverage from longer limbs combined with more weight plays a big roll. An extra 1, 2 or 3 inches in length isn‘t going to make that much of a difference for someone with a 6’7” wingspan and 34” inseam attached to 230lbs. Also, I am riding a bike that is pretty much the same weight as someone who is say 5’7 making it a lot easier for me to man-handle the bike to where I want it to go than it would be for them.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

This is CCM's post in another thread, I figured this is also relevant here.




ccm said:


> Has the pendulum swung too far?
> It seems lately that with the exception VanDerPoel's rampage, that many of the crashes of consequence to podium placings at the World Cup XC level have been on the uphills or flat to uphill corners
> 
> Last year enduro-mtb showed that shorter Enduro race bikes recorded faster times
> ...


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

RS VR6 said:


> This is CCM's post in another thread, I figured this is also relevant here.


Interesting how people can read the same article and get different things out of it (not that either are wrong, just interesting).

My takeaway from that same article back when it was released, was not "smaller bikes are better", but rather "balanced bikes" are better. It just so happens that the bikes they tested were more balanced in those smaller sizes. And in this case "Balanced" means balance between the front and rear center.

Mostly from phrases like this in the reviews (emphasis mine)

*Compact and capable – the geometry of the Yeti SB150*
_*The geometry of the Yeti SB150 in size medium is very balanced and offers a good compromise between agility and stability.* The reach is 460 mm, the head angle is 64.5° and the chainstays length is 433 mm. The stack height is 615 mm and the seat tube angle is 77° steep. *However, the length of the rear triangle stays the same on every size, so in the past, we found the size L *_*bike with its long 480 mm reach to be rather unbalanced.*

And, in comparison, here is the slowest bike in the test.

*The loser of this test*
_The clear loser in this test is the COMMENCAL META AM in size large. On average, it was a whopping 9 seconds slower than the medium Yeti. *The main reason is its long front centre with a reach of 495 mm in combination with a short 433 mm rear end and slack 63.6° head angle.* This combination means that you have to ride the bike very actively to generate enough grip on the front wheel when cornering. In tight sections, the META AM tends to understeer a lot and if you don’t reduce your speed, you’ll simply slide through the apex of the turn. Besides costing you a lot of time, it’s exhausting._

Interestingly, this year, Commencal redesigned the Meta AM. In addition to becoming a dedicated mullet bike with a 27.5in rear wheel, they gave it longer rear chainstays (and slightly difference chainstay lengths for S/M, and L/XL bikes), and reduced the reach by 10mm. I think that says a lot about what they thought about the feedback they got.

And, even though Richie Rude is often called out as riding a "smaller" size... he is in fact in the size range recommended by Yeti as overlapping sizes. So its not as if he's riding something much smaller. Also, on the topic of RAD, Jack Moir is riding a size L... but he also over forked the bike by 10mm, and added a 15mm extension to the lower headset cup. And then, 30mm of spacers under the stem, and a tall riser bar. So, in terms of RAD, I'd guess he's not riding something dramatically undersized for him. But it would appear that he wants a smaller wheelbase'd bike for EWS, hence all those modifications to make the smaller (for him) bike work for him.


----------



## Dan75r (Oct 7, 2021)

I'm 178 cm tall with longer than average arms and I just bought a new Jamis. Its a medium frame 29er and it feels huge. I haven't had a chance to ride it on a trail yet but I'm worried its too big.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

xcandrew said:


> Stand over clearance on my 18" (=medium) '93 Stumpjumper hardtail is far better than any modern bike that I've had an interest in, and that's with fork that is an inch longer than stock and tires 1/4" bigger than stock. It's about 740mm with the longer fork and bigger tires. A Epic Evo that would fit me is 781mm standover, about 40mm higher. Make sense because my '90s bike has a much lower bottom bracket, similar short head tube, and much shorter fork axle to crown (even with the longer than stock fork), which more than compensates for less slope in the top tube. Can't use the very back of the top tube for standover anyway because the tip of the seat is in the way. You at 6'3" must have been getting a much different '90s bike in geometry than I was the medium size to have worse standover then than now.


You're comparing the standover of an old hardtail to a modern full suspension bike. (not a fair comparison) Yes, small and medium full suspension bikes often don't have the best standover clearance.

I guess my thinking on that comment was just that seat tubes have gotten shorter for longer dropper posts. Modern hardtails have excellent standover clearance. My XL 2019 Kona Honzo ST (hardtail) has a 708mm standover, much less than both of the mediums you mentioned.


----------



## xcandrew (Dec 30, 2007)

*OneSpeed* said:


> You're comparing the standover of an old hardtail to a modern full suspension bike. (not a fair comparison) Yes, small and medium full suspension bikes often don't have the best standover clearance.
> 
> I guess my thinking on that comment was just that seat tubes have gotten shorter for longer dropper posts. Modern hardtails have excellent standover clearance. My XL 2019 Kona Honzo ST (hardtail) has a 708mm standover, much less than both of the mediums you mentioned.


It's a fair comparison if you think standover in the 720-740mm range for a medium is an issue (or not an issue in my case). I replied because that was the first I've heard someone say standover was an issue in '90s mountain bikes. It's sufficient enough that the thought never occurred to me to want it even lower, so that's why your comment drew my attention. The newer (2015) 29er XC hardtail (Stumpjumper Elite, same design as the Epic) I had for 3 years was over 800mm in size L, and that was enough to make me think a bit - mainly that the '90s bike was so much better. My legs would rub on the top tube riding out of the saddle on that bike, but it wasn't an issue with crotch clearance/ dumping the bike.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Vs.


----------



## xcandrew (Dec 30, 2007)

*OneSpeed* said:


> View attachment 1952128


Tallest '90s mountain bike I've ever seen .


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

xcandrew said:


> Tallest '90s mountain bike I've ever seen .


They're both XL.


----------



## xcandrew (Dec 30, 2007)

I see Multispeeds . Mine has a lot more post showing on a much smaller 18"/M frame. I guess XL '90s bike suck more than Ms, which I'm quite happy with still as now my only bike.


----------



## DeoreDX (Jul 28, 2007)

Everyone has different goals when riding a bike. RAD sizing is about being able to exert maximum biomechanical leverage on a bicycle. Depending on your riding goals maybe that isn't necessary and you choose your sizing based on other criteria which puts you outside of those numbers.

I know right now my sweet spot tends to be shorter reach and slightly steeper head tube than what is trendy. I tend to stay centered on the pedals and light in the hands and I tend to wash out the front end of some of these new super long slack bikes with long front centers because I don't aggressively weight the front. Do I change my riding style to ride a longer bike or find a bike fit that works with my current riding style? Too long for my style might be too short for others.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

DeoreDX said:


> RAD sizing is about being able to exert maximum biomechanical leverage on a bicycle.


While that's the idea, I'm not sure it's true. RAD sizing has you end in a deadlift position but you don't start in a deadlift position on a bike and Lee is always talking about how riding a bike is a rowing motion. But the end point for correct rowing form is much higher so riding a bike is really neither. Also, I think he even mentioned that going RAD- gives more leverage? However, I think in many cases wheelbase will make a larger difference in your ability to row the bike than reach.


----------



## OldSchoolMBer (May 25, 2013)

stripes said:


> I’m not sure why people like the Outside magazine author latch onto LLB’s fitting like it’s gospel


People like the warm blanket of certainty


----------



## Arm&Hammer (Dec 19, 2020)

Bikes have gotten smaller over the years. The reach numbers are longer but the ETT has gotten shorter. I used to able to fit a L now I can only find XL's that fit and even some of those are too small. I am only 6'1", if I was any taller there would be problems.


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

OldSchoolMBer said:


> People like the warm blanket of certainty


In the bike industry? Everything is always different and constantly changing.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

Arm&Hammer said:


> Bikes have gotten smaller over the years. The reach numbers are longer but the ETT has gotten shorter. I used to able to fit a L now I can only find XL's that fit and even some of those are too small. I am only 6'1", if I was any taller there would be problems.


Eventually I will make my way to the referenced article, but even on an XL frame my stem is still 80mm. This is the 1st XL frame I've ever owned. Large frames with a 90-100mm stem always seemed fine until recently, then the cockpit got even shorter by virtue of the seat tube angle, despite the increased reach. And this past weekend was a good test: 3 rides in 3 days with plenty of chunder, on-bike dynamics, and some real work involved. The only parts of my body that felt beat were my triceps and my quads. So I guess I typically ignore the bike fit articles.

-F

edit:
5th(?) paragraph...
" “If you’re six foot four, then mazel tov, bikes finally fit,” he [McCormack] says. "

Done reading article.


----------



## OldSchoolMBer (May 25, 2013)

Arm&Hammer said:


> Bikes have gotten smaller over the years. The reach numbers are longer but the ETT has gotten shorter. I used to able to fit a L now I can only find XL's that fit and even some of those are too small.


Funny you say that because I've been thinking the same thing. Just because the reach numbers are longer, people are riding in a more upright position than days past because of the other dimensional changes. Even though my modern ride has a much longer wheelbase and overall feels like a much bigger bike, my actual riding position is much less stretched out than bikes of old.


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

Proportional crank length? Is that you?


----------



## OldSchoolMBer (May 25, 2013)

stripes said:


> In the bike industry? Everything is always different and constantly changing.


You're absolutely right, the world is constantly changing and that freaks people out. Hence the tendency for many to latch onto things they can feel certain about rather than confront the unknown in a changing world.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Don't have time this morning to wade through all the responses, but I have some data points to add.

I'm 5'8, but have fairly long arms for my height (my torso and inseam proportions seem pretty middle-of-the-curve for my height). My first couple of bikes, by a pretty big margin, felt wrong. This was late 90's to early 2000's. Large frames felt too big. Granted, they'd probably have felt amazing back then if I had enough thought to throw on a short stem. But I didn't know enough and relied pretty heavily on the recommendations from shop staff. And certainly, in the midwest, bike shop staff around that time were anything but progressive when it came to mountain bikes.

My first bike with modern-ish geometry was a Salsa Bucksaw. It was a revelation in fit for me. My current Guerrilla Gravity Pedalhead finally feels spacious enough for my arms. I have definitely felt bikes that are too long on test rides (since I've usually been on the cusp of a large frame, I've always tried them out), and these bikes aren't that. By today's standards, my Pedalhead certainly isn't among the longest frames such that I need to size down, but that's my proportions.

My wife is in the opposite situation. Even though her inseam/torso proportions are pretty standard for her height, she has much shorter arms and that HAS affected her bike fit negatively. She is one who had to size down to avoid getting stretched out. Just about everybody says she should be on a S frame (she's 5'4), but in even a halfway modern geo bike, that's just TOO LONG for her. She's had to size down to an XS frame. Her current Juliana Furtado fits her well in an XS. And therein is the problem. Most manufacturers don't offer frame sizes that small! So it limits her selection. The last time she went to a shop to test ride bikes, the shop staff were pushing her HARD to buy a small and were touting the benefits of riding longer frames. Even pointed to a woman in the shop who had happily followed their advice (whose body proportions were about as different from my wife's as they could be - she was a much longer-limbed person) as an example of why my wife should do the same. I told the shop guy that she felt that all the bikes she had ridden in his shop that day felt awkward to my wife (while she was out riding another one, and looking just as awkward as she felt) and that her arms were short, giving her no range of motion. If you just looked at her riding the bike (which the employees never actually did), it was obvious that the bikes were too big - her arms were stretched out completely.

So I totally get why there NEED to be long frames out there. For people like me, for other folks with long arms (especially) that need more space in the front-center. But there also NEED to be frames that aren't so long, for people like my wife.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

These stupid low BBs and cramped cockpits due to steep ST angles have lengthened bikes but done little for comfort or slow-speed technical handling. I think it has gone a bit too far and we are on bikes with really long wheelbases. To gain some of that comfort back, maybe many choose bigger bikes. I know I am starting to, though I prefer the handling of shorter wheelbases.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

meltingfeather said:


> Proportional crank length? Is that you?


That’s me.

Well, used to be me, anyway. As has already been said, everything changes.
=sParty


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

Harold said:


> Don't have time this morning to wade through all the responses, but I have some data points to add.
> 
> I'm 5'8, but have fairly long arms for my height (my torso and inseam proportions seem pretty middle-of-the-curve for my height). My first couple of bikes, by a pretty big margin, felt wrong. This was late 90's to early 2000's. Large frames felt too big. Granted, they'd probably have felt amazing back then if I had enough thought to throw on a short stem. But I didn't know enough and relied pretty heavily on the recommendations from shop staff. And certainly, in the midwest, bike shop staff around that time were anything but progressive when it came to mountain bikes.
> 
> ...


Well said. I have an extremely long inseam and long arms. Years ago I had a custom road frame made. What a difference. Most, don’t have a clue when it comes to fit. Roadies have it figured out better. If I lived on the east coast, I would quite possibly be on a medium version of my AM bike rather than a large. 

I’m also a Clyde that rides on choppy terrain. My needs are different than the average rider. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## VTSession (Aug 18, 2005)

Meh. I'm sure this Lee McCormack guy is plenty talented at fitting bikes but bike fit also takes personal preference into the equation. 

According this article my XL Hightower is too big for me. I'm 6'1" and have been riding size "large" bikes for 25 years. My shop recommended I go up a size due to my long legs and the "modern" fit of the new Hightower. I quickly realized that I've been riding bikes that have been too small all these years. The longer reach, slacker HT, steeper ST and lower standover feels fantastic and so much more natural and comfortable than the shorter, "smaller" bikes I've ridden for many years. I don't really care about angles or new acronyms that I should be going by, I love my bigger bike and it fits like a glove.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

When I began mountain biking circa 2013 a modern size Large was disturbingly awkward and short (I'm 5'10 these days with shrinkage). Not a little short, not just needing a longer stem, but 3" effin inches too short of a Reach minimum. Once you fixed the seat tube angle (so much better) and slacked the bikes out (nicer but not a must have) the WB had to increase to maintain a correct fit in the center of the bike.

Ride any full size motocross bike built in the last 40 years to understand that your weight should be on your feet when standing with your hands in a comfortable position in front of you. Riding a 10 year old mountain bike is akin to riding a 45 year old MX bike. I know people in fact rode both well, but that doesn't mean they sucked any less.

The first bike that was in the range of fitting me was my L '19 Mondraker.

Rude rides a medium in part because he has supreme abilities and doesn't require stability in the way a typical middle aged novice does and in part because the balance of the SB150 is just off on their large due to short chainstay length. This is nothing to go off of for normal people.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

A big part of my problem with the article is it's a raw number assessment using RAD/RAAD in a vacuum. I give bike enthusiasts more credit. Most of us have selected and refined bike fit based on previous bikes. So it's been compare, contrast, adjust and refine. Using myself as an example, it's been incremental adjustments to get my preference point. Ride personal older bike A, try candidate bike B, Decide bike B moved the needle in the right direction - finding the reach/stack/ett agreeable. And on on.

While there's no doubt mfgr offerings influence options, as does terrain trends... but so does rider selection. The whole process feeds on each other. So tldr: demonstrated rider preference brought us to where we are - that counts for something vs. some guy's calculator.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

I've been going longer and longer with my frames over the past few years and until this last frame I had to admit they rode very well and the concerns I had were unfounded or at least the trade offs were worth the benefits. With my last frame in that multi-year experiment I found it rode well, but my stoke levels weren't where they were on other bikes I had ridden. So I sized back down and moved the parts to another frame and I was loving the ride again. My assessment of the situation is that I finally reached a point where the benefits of the longer frame were not worth the trade offs. Keeping in mind the smaller medium frame I am on now is still longer than the XL frame I rode in 2009. So smaller is relative!

This decision relates to my preferences, riding style and local terrain. Someone else might have gone the opposite way.

When it comes to riding bikes as long as you are having a blast there is no wrong answer. OTOH if you are riding a bike that doesn't make you happy for fashion reasons that's stupid.


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

vikb said:


> I've been going longer and longer with my frames over the past few years and until this last frame I had to admit they rode very well and the concerns I had were unfounded or at least the trade offs were worth the benefits. With my last frame in that multi-year experiment I found it rode well, but my stoke levels weren't where they were on other bikes I had ridden. So I sized back down and moved the parts to another frame and I was loving the ride again.


Based on my experience, the bike industry hit the ideal around 2016-2018. Before that, bikes were too short. But the newest bikes have gone a bit too far IMHO.



NWA_Tre said:


> How about ETT of both old and new bike?


Back in 2017 Santa Cruz didn't publish ETT. I think it's not very useful in any event because one thing I agree with Lee on is that the key for mountain bike sizing is the location of the grips in relation to the bottom bracket, and ETT only measures it in relation to the seat. I'm not sitting when I'm doing the majority of my bike handling.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

DeoreDX said:


> Everyone has different goals when riding a bike. RAD sizing is about being able to exert maximum biomechanical leverage on a bicycle. Depending on your riding goals maybe that isn't necessary and you choose your sizing based on other criteria which puts you outside of those numbers.
> 
> I know right now my sweet spot tends to be shorter reach and slightly steeper head tube than what is trendy. I tend to stay centered on the pedals and light in the hands and I tend to wash out the front end of some of these new super long slack bikes with long front centers because I don't aggressively weight the front. Do I change my riding style to ride a longer bike or find a bike fit that works with my current riding style? Too long for my style might be too short for others.


Time to add a bit of rear center and watch the weight transfer. 
Fwiw trailing rear brake will transfer weight to the front and of course your hands. But without changing body position.
If you dont want more rc. Then this is th evidence that geo has gone too far.


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

DeoreDX said:


> Everyone has different goals when riding a bike. RAD sizing is about being able to exert *maximum biomechanical leverage* on a bicycle. Depending on your riding goals maybe that isn't necessary and you choose your sizing based on other criteria which puts you outside of those numbers.


The part about biomechanical leverage is an important point. There's no doubt there's a sweet spot, as far as leverage is concerned, right around RAD that gets worse the more the rider moves out of that range. I imagine the more a rider values pumping as an essential skill, the more important RAD becomes. Some riders might value other things more, but fit is always a matter of finding the right compromise.

Personally, I like riding my mtb and BMX ever-so-slightly RAD negative. The overall geometry of the bike doesn't really impact that preference. I've set up old 90s bikes for RAD and they still ride great, even though the overall riding posture is different and the geometry is way different. I'm not sure what size my next bike will be, but I'll probably go for one that has a geometry that matches my riding goals in a size that best fits my RAD, regardless of the manufacturer's size chart or the size listed on the frame.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

kpdemello said:


> Back in 2017 Santa Cruz didn't publish ETT. I think it's not very useful in any event because one thing I agree with Lee on is that the key for mountain bike sizing is the location of the grips in relation to the bottom bracket, and ETT only measures it in relation to the seat. I'm not sitting when I'm doing the majority of my bike handling.


Would you like the seat ahead of the bb. Or perhaps ett really does matter then. It sets up where you apply power during crank rotation. Further forward will make the bike more efficient and comfortable during climbing. But at a sacrifice to flatter terrain comfort.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

Rude rides a medium because it shaves fractions of a second off per turn at professional race pace. Turns happen to be where most races are won or lost, again usually by a second and fractions or less. This has zero relevance to the average rider. 

I want to revisit chain stay length and the opinions put forth...

I'll contest that short chain stays increase maneuverability. At least in the matrix I live in at 6'2" with long front centers. Short stays in that equation make bikes less stable and therefore less maneuverable. It does increase turning radius for 180° turns but that's it. I would definitely separate that out from the overall idea of maneuverability though. I feel like this is just now entering the consciousness of bike builders and riders alike on a broader scale. Again growing pains from old geo to new. 

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Phew! I'm glad I'm an old school XC guy. However, that leaves me in the dust if I ride with a group of long, low and slack dudes on more droppy and techie trails.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

RS VR6 said:


> Also he's on a Canyon...one company that still hasn't gotten on the LLS train.


Not entirely sure about that..The Canyon Stoic (for instance) is one of the longest reach and wheelbase hardtails on my list. Not THE longest, but way up there...


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

RS VR6 said:


> As for RAD...I'm pretty spot on with Lee's formula...so I guess it *works for me*.


That's the key. It doesn't work for everyone. We all need to stop boiling it down so much. Figure out your own fit. Yes it sucks that we can't demo bikes. We can only control what we can control. Borrow bikes, rent bikes, or just take a shot and play with components...but realize it is what it is. Again, it sucks. Come up with solutions and realize expectations suck, too.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

jacksonlui said:


> Although many don't agree with LLB's fit method for bike sizing, the RAD and RAAD are good tools to help you compare a bike that you feel comfortable in. Sizing varies so much between brands, it's good to have a way to normalize things. Would be good to have another tool which incorporates front center, CS, WB, etc.. to determine a bike's sweetspot size.


I started out looking at "key" geo measurements. That was a good starting point, but not an ending point. All it did was drive me to take the reach, HTA, ETT, etc. that I thought I liked and then start comparing other numbers within those. Some of those bikes that had "good key measurements" disappeared off my list in the context of ALL measurements. Jumping off points are good...but you need a very well-weaved safety net/pad/parachute in order to land safely


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

Dan75r said:


> I'm 178 cm tall with longer than average arms and I just bought a new Jamis. Its a medium frame 29er and it feels huge. I haven't had a chance to ride it on a trail yet but I'm worried its too big.


how does it feel seated, first off?


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

I am 6'2" and the last two times I got to do demo days (Kona and Norco), I tried L and XL models of the same bike back to back and personally I preferred the L. Usually on the cusp of L and XL for most manufacturers.


----------



## HEMIjer (Jul 17, 2008)

For me and my riding style comfort over moderate to long period of time most important to me and comparing bikes reach and the increase of it has really helped me along with seat tube angle understand what bikes I want to be on. So guess for me the newer geo is really better. So when we discuss LLS it is really those two things that matter to me more so than HTA and BB height. I know this though through experimentation and years of riding a bike. I also know that if someone has a bike that is closed to being correct and ride it enough and make small tweaks along the way your body will learn and train itself to be comfortable. That all being said I would NOT go back to shorter reach bikes with slack seat tubes and steep HTAs. I can and do setup my bikes based on how I expect to use them. Cases in point:


My "Trail" hardtail is 440mm of reach but I only use a 40mm stem on it to keep nimble, with ~420mm CS and ~65 HTA it is just fun, I can and have ridden it all day (6+ hours) but would be first choice for many reasons, a big one is that I like to be stretched out and have a bike that is stable on Downhills when i get fatigued
My XXC / Marathon Endurance bike comparatively has same reach but a 60mm stem, it came that way I was comfortable on it from the get go have never really had a reason to change but my measure on that bike is more how do I handle that bike after being exhausted but gotta keep on pushing. while it is inst a plush bike when do not know what getting into its a go to.
Bigger Travel bike 440mm reach with 50mm stem LLS by 2-3 years ago standard but not by today, this works for me because I ant this bike to a more a long travel trail bike and not full on enduro but I could use it for that if I wanted to because well I am comfortable on it and sits right between the trail hardtail and Endurance race bike.
My XC bike is only 425mm reach slacker STA and longer stem at 70mm and steep HTA at 69 compared to many other offering in same category. I dont think it matter much for the above bike but I am talking about a Trek SuperCaliber I note this because I would have never bought this bike looking at the geometry but was offered to test ride on some legit techy singletrack and the geo didn't hold me back, I honestly thought it would because I was looking at the geo of other bikes in a similar category. I can't 100% explain why but I think all said and done it is because the overall reach when taking the stem into account is near the same and the steeper HTA compensates for being "longer" than my trail hardtail.

So with all that my conclusion is consistency matters and you need to train your body for that consistency and comfort, can like what you like but more you ride that particular geo the more your body is going to perform, change to much and you muscle memory might kick you. That make sense?


----------



## BadgerOne (Jul 17, 2015)

DrDon said:


> Years ago I had a custom road frame made. What a difference. Most, don’t have a clue when it comes to fit. Roadies have it figured out better.


Absolutely true, and I would hope so. Road bikes, outside of some minor changes to head tube length to increase stack and accommodate touring and distance riding, cracked geometry long ago and have remained nearly static since grandma fell off her dinosaur and broke her stone girdle. Even fitting machines and formulas are based around road bikes. Everything MTB from a geometry perspective is in flux right now as everyone figures it out, and standard fitting exercises won't necessarily work anymore. I get the sense that companies are going to start to freeze or even pull back on more extreme geos we're seeing now. Seems like a good idea, but I have to wonder how many people were truly clamoring for an impossibly long reach and an ultra slack head angle so they could charge nasty black diamond stuff on a hardtail. I bet of all the buyers a tiny percentage actually use them that way. Everything in moderation.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

xcandrew said:


> Tallest '90s mountain bike I've ever seen .


many, not all, 90's/2000's MTB's had a TT nearly parallel with the ground. It's like they started with the pedal stroke from an already higher BB and once they had the ST length, they said, "Well, we have to weld the TT right below the seat collar..."


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

jeremy3220 said:


> While that's the idea, I'm not sure it's true. RAD sizing has you end in a deadlift position but you don't start in a deadlift position on a bike and Lee is always talking about how riding a bike is a rowing motion. But the end point for correct rowing form is much higher so riding a bike is really neither. Also, I think he even mentioned that going RAD- gives more leverage? However, I think in many cases wheelbase will make a larger difference in your ability to row the bike than reach.


Kinda what I thought regarding RAD. He's got you pulling the bike all the way into your body and then seeing if the grips land right in your hands. Besides big bunny hop motions, how often are _most_ riders pulling the steerer into their nuts? Doesn't seem like a frequently used/needed motion...


----------



## B. Rock (Mar 9, 2011)

OP, I usually like your posts but this one wears a bit thin. I find zero shock seeing this now on the Lenz site https://lenzsport.com/bicycle-fit/ . That's a relatively recent addition, and one I saw them post about on fb recently.

Anyone draw any parallels between that and the Outside article, and what the initial post is poking at? Anyone know what bike manufacturer OP generally rides? Wink wink.

The times have changed. I loved my PunkAss Lunchbox but having moved onto more modern geometry (although carefully selected) I have a bike that is overall better hands down. And yes, including tech trails like Moore Fun, Dakota, and a trip out to New England for their tighter trails.


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

Flyer said:


> These stupid low BBs and cramped cockpits due to steep ST angles have lengthened bikes but done little for comfort or slow-speed technical handling. I think it has gone a bit too far and we are on bikes with really long wheelbases. To gain some of that comfort back, maybe many choose bigger bikes. I know I am starting to, though I prefer the handling of shorter wheelbases.


I agree with the lower BB being a problem. With the advent of dropper posts there there is no need for a 335 or less BB height. Center of gravity is around the waist area and stability can be better controlled using the dropper vs. lowering the BB bracket which only increases the risk of pedal strikes. Love my 349 mm BB height on my bike.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

VTSession said:


> I don't really care about angles or new acronyms that I should be going by, I love my bigger bike and it fits like a glove.


This is literally all that matters and is totally subjective to everyone. I would add that everyone should always be willing to keep trying new bikes/sizes with an open mind. We might feel like we're on the most perfect bike...and maybe we are...but we'll never know if we have nothing to compare it to. It's all relative. Trails, person, frame, components. I guess this is why some people have several bikes, too...


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

vikb said:


> Keeping in mind the smaller medium frame I am on now is still longer than the XL frame I rode in 2009. So smaller is relative!


I will be in this boat, except likely going to Large from XL. My current bike has a very steep HTA. When that slackens out in my next bike, the wheelbase will get longer on a Large than my current XL. Reach will actually be slightly more as well, while ETT stays within millimeters.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

kpdemello said:


> I'm not sitting when I'm doing the majority of my bike handling.


And this is why it's all relative. It's fine for you to express this, others need to read it *not* as, "I should consider doing what this guy does", but as, "This guy rides like this, and hence does that."...and then compare themselves to the statement. If they ride seated more, they can essentially disregard your input (no offense).


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

kpdemello said:


> Back in 2017 Santa Cruz didn't publish ETT. I think it's not very useful in any event because one thing I agree with Lee on is that the key for mountain bike sizing is the location of the grips in relation to the bottom bracket, and ETT only measures it in relation to the seat. I'm not sitting when I'm doing the majority of my bike handling.


So do you feel the new bike doesn't feel like the right size when you're standing, descending?


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

WHALENARD said:


> I want to revisit chain stay length and the opinions put forth...
> 
> I'll contest that short chain stays increase maneuverability. At least in the matrix I live in at 6'2" with long front centers. Short stays in that equation make bikes less stable and therefore less maneuverable. It does increase turning radius for 180° turns but that's it. I would definitely separate that out from the overall idea of maneuverability though. I feel like this is just now entering the consciousness of bike builders and riders alike on a broader scale. Again growing pains from old geo to new.


Totally agree. If you take short chainstays and long/slack bikes to the extreme, you'd have a front wheel that's 6 feet ahead of you and a rear that's 2 feet behind you. You can't use enough "modern riding posture" to have your weight centered, much less slightly more on the front wheel when needed.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

prj71 said:


> I agree with the lower BB being a problem. With the advent of dropper posts there there is no need for a 335 or less BB height. Center of gravity is around the waist area and stability can be better controlled using the dropper vs. lowering the BB bracket which only increases the risk of pedal strikes. Love my 349 mm BB height on my bike.


Provided a short seat tube, I agree. We do have some bikes with 500mm seat tubes though and that can just be way too upright for some people on some trails


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

WHALENARD said:


> Rude rides a medium because it shaves fractions of a second off per turn at professional race pace. Turns happen to be where most races are won or lost, again usually by a second and fractions or less. This has zero relevance to the average rider.
> 
> I want to revisit chain stay length and the opinions put forth...
> 
> ...


Id disagree. They are fully aware of rc design implications. 
The bean counters dont want to spend the money on design for shock tunes for the changes in leverage ratios and of course spare parts inventory. Further there is a cost increase to all frames due to volume reductions on those parts in manufacturing. 
I expect only peer pressure will bring this along further.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

Fuse6F said:


> Id disagree. They are fully aware of rc design implications.
> The bean counters dont want to spend the money on design for shock tunes for the changes in leverage ratios and of course spare parts inventory. Further there is a cost increase to all frames due to volume reductions on those parts in manufacturing.
> I expect only peer pressure will bring this along further.


I do think that one of the historical reasons for fixed chainstay lengths, is likely cost.

No matter which way you slice it/achieve it, if you want different chainstay lengths, you need to do more engineering, and logistics/production work. Because those different rear center sizes do come with different leverage curves/and likely parts.

The most cost effective way to do it seems to be to change where the BB is in on the frame and keep the rear triangle the same for all sizes (what Norco does with their ride aligned bikes), which means the only part that is different, is the front triangle (which is what was going to be different either way).

But, I also appreciate the manufacturers who have been designing bikes with either modular dropouts (a la Banshee/Nicolai), or with flip chips (Kona Process X, new GT Force, Raaw Madonna, etc).


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Dan75r said:


> I'm 178 cm tall with longer than average arms and I just bought a new Jamis. Its a medium frame 29er and it feels huge. I haven't had a chance to ride it on a trail yet but I'm worried its too big.


Long travel 29ers feel huge to me, the wheels don't leave the ground as much and the bike doesn't react as fast. I still feel cramped when I ride one with a frame that's too small, but even on the right "size" the bike feels "huge" to me. It's more stable, as it probably should be with the wheel size.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

Jayem said:


> Long travel 29ers feel huge to me, the wheels don't leave the ground as much and the bike doesn't react as fast. I still feel cramped when I ride one with a frame that's too small, but even on the right "size" the bike feels "huge" to me. It's more stable, as it probably should be with the wheel size.


As an aside/different perspective. Just to illustrate how what you're "used to" can affect how the same thing feels.

I grew up trail riding dirt bikes. Nothing extreme, but I got a lot of exposure there. A buddy of mine grew up riding BMX/Vert (qualified for the X games in Vert/street when he was 15). We ride bikes with very objectively similar measurements.

My background has made every bike I've ever ridden feel small and twitchy. Yet my buddy feels like his bike is a monster truck that can smash anything, and is crazy stable. We both think its just because of what we grew up thinking was "normal".

Turns out, the bike I grew up riding, while small for a dirt bike, had a 1354mm wheelbase, and 62 degree HTA. So my current size "L" bike... has a ~130mm shorter wheelbase, and 4 degree steeper HTA. I don't have any measurements for my buddies BMX bikes he was riding back then. But I'd bet the wheelbase on those was at least 200-400mm shorter, and the HTA was probably steeper than 72 degrees.


----------



## advan031 (Jul 29, 2019)

I'm 5'10" on a medium Ibis Ripmo V1 and got caught up on Lee's RAD sizing system over the summer. I lowered the my stack and went from 50mm stem to 32mm to get as close to my RAD measurement. Rode it like this all summer thinking it's better but never really felt dialed. I went back up to 40mm stem and my bike feels at home again.

At the end of the day, you gotta find out what works for YOU (riding style and trail you ride on).


----------



## itsky (Jul 26, 2011)

Coming from a long background in surfing and skateboarding, it would seem to me that bike style, bike fit, and ideal geometry are wholly personal preference and condition specific. 

In surfing, it can be head-high and perfect and two dudes of the same size will prefer different boards. One 185lb guy might be on a 6'7" rounded tail and another on 5'10" fish and each is gonna surf the wave differently. One guy might prefer to stack as many waves as possible, while the other might sit on the outside and bide for the wave of the day.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

itsky said:


> In surfing, it can be head-high and perfect and two dudes of the same size will prefer different boards. One 185lb guy might be on a 6'7" rounded tail and another on 5'10" fish and each is gonna surf the wave differently. One guy might prefer to stack as many waves as possible, while the other might sit on the outside and bide for the wave of the day.


One guy might want the longest wave ride, the other wants the most gnar and hurries back to the line. I get it


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

advan031 said:


> I'm 5'10" on a medium Ibis Ripmo V1 and got caught up on Lee's RAD sizing system over the summer. I lowered the my stack and went from 50mm stem to 32mm to get as close to my RAD measurement. Rode it like this all summer thinking it's better but never really felt dialed. I went back up to 40mm stem and my bike feels at home again.
> 
> At the end of the day, you gotta find out what works for YOU (riding style and trail you ride on).


Out of curiosity, did you calculate your RAD based on your height, or did you actually go out and measure it?

Because I'm knee deep in all of this at the moment .


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

ocnLogan said:


> Out of curiosity, did you calculate your RAD based on your height, or did you actually go out and measure it?
> 
> Because I'm knee deep in all of this at the moment .


LOL, I tried to do the two-ladders thing the other day with buckets. Not tall enough. I sat on the ground and tried that method with my current bike. I guess it's too long? Seated on flats is the only time I feel that way, though. Climbs like a goat, descends sketchy AH due to 69* HTA and shorter WB


----------



## advan031 (Jul 29, 2019)

ocnLogan said:


> Out of curiosity, did you calculate your RAD based on your height, or did you actually go out and measure it?
> 
> Because I'm knee deep in all of this at the moment .


I did his string method of measurement in this video: 




My only advice is don't wait too long to change things up if it doesn't feel good...lol


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

NWA_Tre said:


> LOL, I tried to do the two-ladders thing the other day with buckets. Not tall enough. I sat on the ground and tried that method with my current bike. I guess it's too long? Seated on flats is the only time I feel that way, though. Climbs like a goat, descends sketchy AH due to 69* HTA and shorter WB


I was mostly asking advan03 how he determined the RAD that he was trying to get close to. I was curious, because my "calculated" RAD appears to be nowhere near my measured RAD (using the technique shown in the video, using a pen/marker/something and a wall).

Which it sounds like he actually measured.



advan031 said:


> I did his string method of measurement in this video:


So you're running just a smidge larger than your RAD then, if I understand you correctly?

Due to the difficulty of finding bikes to demo, I'm trying to do as much as I can to determine the right size bike with math/geo charts. It has its limitations, but at least its helping me compare which bikes should be larger/smaller, or closer to my ideal size.


----------



## advan031 (Jul 29, 2019)

ocnLogan said:


> I was mostly asking advan03 how he determined the RAD that he was trying to get close to. I was curious, because my "calculated" RAD appears to be nowhere near my measured RAD (using the technique shown in the video, using a pen/marker/something and a wall).
> 
> Which it sounds like he actually measured.
> 
> ...



I'm about 4cm off my "ideal" RAD.


----------



## Impetus (Aug 10, 2014)

Lee's RAD doesn't seem to work for me, I'm pretty average in all my dimensions- height, inseam, ape-index, (5'9" and 32"pants) but according to his calculations I should be on my wife's Women's MED bike (shes 5'5"). I've certainly ridden it, but it didn't feel good.

That said- I can "kinda" jive with the point of the article- that longer isn't really always better. Again- I'm an average porportioned 5'9", My Marin has a stack of 625, a conservative reach of 440, and a CS of 430, total wb is jusssst a smidge under 1200mm. I feel _REALLY REALLY_ comfortable on that bike- doing everything from pedaling some flowy green beginner trails to 'stupid' steep jank, to mach chicken. I could maybe like an extra 5-8mm of reach, but not more than that.
I recently rode my 6'1" buddy's Large Banshee Prime with a 470 reach, 450 CS, wb 1245. I did not love that either despite many companies stating 465-475 reach is good for my height. It absolutely PLOWED the AZ desert chunk, but I didn't like how it turned or manualed. I'm not sure it made me a better rider in any regard.

In that regard, as many other's have anecdotally shared- the industry may have jumped the shark and sizing 'down' is a solid option for many riders preferences.


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

It's true that bike fit is personal preference, and what works for one won't necessarily work for all. I look at bike fitting as a starting point not an absolute rule. If you watch the Joy of Bike videos featuring Lee and Alex, they suggest trying RAD sizing, not necessarily adhering to it religiously. In one video I recall Alex saying something like, "At least consider trying a smaller size bike."

I think you've got to experiment to figure out what works for you. For a long time I didn't change anything on my bikes (and snowboards). But the last few years I've begun experimenting with different bars, seat positions, stance angles on the snowboards, etc and I wished I had tried this a long time ago.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

stripes said:


> @mikesee: I really like your posts here, but I’m not sure why people like the Outside magazine author latch onto LLB’s fitting like it’s gospel. That’s something I’m curious about, especially given modern bike geometry.



As I mentioned, I don't know Lee. And I don't keep up with other bike fitters either.

The article caught my eye largely because I've read Joe Lindsey's writing for years and I have a lot of respect for him. He doesn't write anything he can't prove, he actually rides, and he thinks a lot about what he's going to write before doing so.

Those things used to be assumed, but it doesn't seem so anymore.

I was also interested in the article because I know way, way, way more people for who modern LLS _doesn't_ work than for who it does.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

B. Rock said:


> OP, I usually like your posts but this one wears a bit thin. I find zero shock seeing this now on the Lenz site https://lenzsport.com/bicycle-fit/ . That's a relatively recent addition, and one I saw them post about on fb recently.
> 
> Anyone draw any parallels between that and the Outside article, and what the initial post is poking at? Anyone know what bike manufacturer OP generally rides? Wink wink.
> 
> The times have changed. I loved my PunkAss Lunchbox but having moved onto more modern geometry (although carefully selected) I have a bike that is overall better hands down. And yes, including tech trails like Moore Fun, Dakota, and a trip out to New England for their tighter trails.


So, it's time to put on the tinfoil hat?

I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next girl, but you're off base. Devin Lenz is his own man -- what he does with geo isn't impacted by what I think, or vice versa.

Put differently, I didn't even know that was on his site.

Swing and a miss.


----------



## davec113 (May 31, 2006)

I agree with Peter of Yeti that 29" wheels have driven many of the changes, and it's arguably benefitted other wheel/tire sizes as well.

I had an '09 Trek Session 88 w/26" wheels that was one of the most natural-feeling bikes I've ever rode. I also had an '18 Slash w/29" wheels that I really struggled with.

9ers fundamentally corner differently, requiring more lean and countersteer. This requires a longer reach and slacker HTA. I went from that '18 Slash to a '20 Enduro and reach went from 460 to 491mm, HTA went from 65 to 64, and the differences for me were profound. The Slash felt like f/r balance was difficult to achieve and ft center felt dangerously short at times, despite it being about the same as my 26" DH bike. Enduro feels much more natural and intuitive to ride vs my Slash.

IME this is extremely complicated as geo is a sum of it's parts and riders are all different. I think that's why 29'ers sucked so much in the past, and it's taken so many years to finally make 9'ers that don't have that awkward feel the early ones had. My newest bike, a Transition Spur, feels very natural to ride, very intuitive and it's also easy to feel when you've got it right. Yes, technique is a bit more "forward" vs older bikes but this also makes bikes more balanced overall, you don't need to have your butt contacting tire on steeper terrain.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

Impetus said:


> I'm pretty average in all my dimensions- height, inseam, ape-index, (5'9" and 32"pants)


I feel like a 32" inseam at your height is long-legged. I'm a 32 and I'm 6'0"


----------



## Impetus (Aug 10, 2014)

NWA_Tre said:


> I feel like a 32" inseam at your height is long-legged. I'm a 32 and I'm 6'0"


sorry- maybe ambiguous? 32" isn't my cycling inseam. I guess I should say " I wear 30x32 Levi's". I'm sure if I did the "book in the junk" test it'd be closer to 30". I do know that my arms are almost exactly 5'9" tip-to-tip, same as my height.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

The thing that's easy to forget is you're not riding "forward" on the bike, at least you really shouldn't be. You're riding with weight centered. Ride a short bike, ride a long bike. Your weight should be centered until the need to move it fore/aft from center. Some bikes give you more range of that movement, but they don't "make" you ride front heavy or rear heavy when standing, unless your reach is way off. Then you really can't get far enough fore/aft. You might be more forward from something like, say, the seat tube...so it feels more forward maybe. It's about weight distribution though.

That was really poorly written. Too much coffee today. A way-too-short reach can get you back and probably too far forward. A way-too-long reach can get you forward but potentially not far enough back. Of course, chainstays affect that...This is probably why all of this can't be looked at in a vaccuum. Ignore this post. I'm rambling.


----------



## davec113 (May 31, 2006)

NWA_Tre said:


> The thing that's easy to forget is you're not riding "forward" on the bike, at least you really shouldn't be. You're riding with weight centered. Ride a short bike, ride a long bike. Your weight should be centered until the need to move it fore/aft from center. Some bikes give you more range of that movement, but they don't "make" you ride front heavy or rear heavy when standing, unless your reach is way off. Then you really can't get far enough fore/aft. You might be more forward from something like, say, the seat tube...so it feels more forward maybe. It's about weight distribution though.


Relative to older geo you are. It's even been called "forward geo", lol. 









Forward Geometry | Peter Verdone Designs






www.peterverdone.com













FORWARD GEOMETRY OF MONDRAKER


Mondraker’s Forward Geometry has proven to be the geometry benchmark for high-end performance mountain bikes nowadays and this is one of our proprietary most unique leading technologies to date.




mondraker.com


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

davec113 said:


> Relative to older geo you are. It's even been called "forward geo", lol.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you though? Was the goal on old geo to ride with weight over the rear more than the front? I think shock-absorber arms should have always been the answer. Granted, we didn't feel stable on the old geo, but we would go OTB just as easy (easier) with locked arms, back on the bike...


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

mikesee said:


> As I mentioned, I don't know Lee. And I don't keep up with other bike fitters either.
> 
> The article caught my eye largely because I've read Joe Lindsey's writing for years and I have a lot of respect for him. He doesn't write anything he can't prove, he actually rides, and he thinks a lot about what he's going to write before doing so.
> 
> ...


Not every LLS bike is created equal. Some cause me the same pain as LLB’s, others feel good to me. I don’t know the author, but his article comes across half-baked and slanted to only one perspective: LLB. There are so many other fit theories and applications that I found it reading more like an ad than something well researched. To me, that’s off-putting. 

While, yes, i do agree that LLS doesn’t work for everyone, not every bike manufacturer is doing that. It’s not necessarily ideal for some types of riding, and other vendors do not have sizing that fits the edges of the height/fit spectrum (GG does not have a size 1, for example). And tall people I’ve been reading really do not like what the steep seat tube does for their riding. 

With the industry’s decision to make the majority of hardtails and short travel 29ers only, it’s not easy to “size down” for short people. Like most things, this article feels like it’s trying to shoehorn everyone into Lee’s fit. And unless you’re the average male height range with the average ape index, this most likely won’t work for you.


----------



## Dan75r (Oct 7, 2021)

NWA_Tre said:


> how does it feel seated, first off?


I'd like the seat a bit lower but I have to trim the post because the water bottle lugs prevent the post from going down any further.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

thoughts???






































looks pretty RADical!!!


----------



## codahale (Oct 6, 2018)

I really like Lee’s work and have benefited a lot from his theory of riding. (Him and Alex vibing on YouTube is filling a “stoner uncle wisdom” gap I didn’t realize I had.) But I think his fit methodology has some shortcomings.

The gist of Lee’s theory of fit is that the main pitch control mechanism for a bike is the lever arm from the hands to the rear axle with the bottom bracket as the pivot. Row the handlebars to apply force to the ground through the rear wheel; pull (or “anti-row”) the handlebars to apply force to the ground through the front wheel. I think that’s absolutely correct and a really key insight into riding dynamics. But the overall model and its application has some holes in it.

One of the weird consequences of this for the RideLogic model is that given two riders of the same height, it will recommend a longer bike to the rider with the shorter arms because they have a longer RAD. After all, the knuckle-dragger’s hands will be lower than the T-rex’s hands when they’re locking out a deadlift. Since the T-rex can pull the bar higher, the thinking goes, they can make better use of a longer RAD lever. As someone with a +5” ape index, this strikes me as beyond counterintuitive. After all, I’ve got way more row/anti-row range of motion than the T-rex, why reduce my leverage? Why is a deadlift lockout considered the maximum range of motion and not, for example, the length of the first pull of an olympic clean? Should women really be riding, on average, longer bikes than men of the same height?

A lot of this gets papered over with RAAD, which is the angle from the BB to your hand position, but in a world where stems are 45mm long, riser bars have 35mm of rise, and fork manufacturers won’t let you run more than 30mm of spacers, how on earth am I expected to get the handlebars on a bike with 630mm of stack to be high enough to hit those recommended angles? Slap some BMX bars on it?

Finally, the RideLogic model is really based around this single lever, which ignores the importance of the spatial relation between the rider’s center of mass and the tires’ contact patches. After all, that’s the triangle of support which allows us to turn. If a bike’s wheelbase is too short (as I can attest from years of personal experience), the rider has to lower their center of mass well past what’s biomechanically comfortable in order to keep from going over the handlebars or looping out. You can hip hinge all you want, but at some point you’re gonna need to bend your knees, and anyone who’s done a wall-sit can tell you it’s rough going supporting your bodyweight like that. Now, maybe that’s an issue for bike designers and not bike fitters, but the 480mm reach bike Lee thinks I should be riding had better be coming with a 60º head tube angle and 480mm chainstays, otherwise it’ll be a bad fit.


----------



## Dan75r (Oct 7, 2021)

codahale said:


> One of the weird consequences of this for the RideLogic model is that given two riders of the same height, it will recommend a longer bike to the rider with the shorter arms because they have a longer RAD.


This makes absolutely no sense to me. Logic would say longer arms = longer reach therefore more comfortable on a longer bike


----------



## TheOtherOne (Jul 27, 2020)

I'm retried and after road riding for the last 2 1/2 years I decided to give MTB a try since everybody said it was so much more fun.

Finding a bike locally to try out proved impossible due to the supply shortages. I finally found a dealer 4.5 hours away that had the model I was interested in a size M/L which I thought was what I needed. After watching me ride it in the parking lot he thought it looked a little small but they also had a size L which they built up while I waited. Coming from a road bike they both seemed absolutely enormous. Being a noob I didn't really know what I was doing or what the bike should feel like so I took his advise and purchased the size L. Big mistake.

After riding it for 2 months on our local intermediate trails (and taking many spills) I came to the conclusion the bike was just too large for me. Luckily, by this time my LBS who I trust had received the same bike in a size M/L, just different color, so I went and talked to him. He offered to let me take it home and test ride it around (using the wheels and tires from my bike) to see if it was a better fit. By this time I had enough experience to know instantly that it felt 100% better and I was much more comfortable on it.

He couldn't do much for me on a trade-in but suggested I give The Pro's Closet a try to see what they would offer for the bike. Although it was a loss from what I originally paid it was still $1000 more than the dealer could do. So I took the hit, sold the size L and purchased the size M/L. And although it was a money losing deal for me I'm very glad I made the change. I've been riding 6 days a week, improving, steadily gaining confidence, really enjoying myself and I haven't been on the road bike in weeks.

And if you're looking for a low hassle way to sell a bike I would highly recommend checking out The Pro's Closet. The entire process was smooth as silk with great communication and immediate payment once they received my bike. My LBS boxed it up for free and I just dropped it off at FedEx. I have no connection to Pro's Closet, just a satisfied customer.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

Dan75r said:


> I'd like the seat a bit lower but I have to trim the post because the water bottle lugs prevent the post from going down any further.


I can't imagine the bike fits you if the seat is too high at full drop. Obviously you want the knee ever-so-slightly bent, but the leg mostly straight while seated with the pedal down all the way. If you have to tippy-toe to get to the bottom of the pedal stroke, and the seat won't go down any more, the bike is too big.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

Fuse6F said:


> thoughts???
> 
> 
> View attachment 1952233
> ...


Lee would probably say in this last shot that the bike was too big, because he should be able to pull the bars to his body with no bend in the arms...


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

codahale said:


> As someone with a +5” ape index...


your arms are FIVE INCHES longer than your height?!?


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

Dan75r said:


> This makes absolutely no sense to me. Logic would say longer arms = longer reach therefore more comfortable on a longer bike


Lee's thinking is longer arms put your hands closer to your feet than someone of the same height with shorter arms...wait, that doesn't make any sense because that person would have to have longer legs to be the same height with shorter arms right? Wait, maybe his torso is long but his arms are short?


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

NWA_Tre said:


> Lee's thinking is longer arms put your hands closer to your feet than someone of the same height with shorter arms...wait, that doesn't make any sense because that person would have to have longer legs to be the same height with shorter arms right? Wait, maybe his torso is long but his arms are short?


This sort of thing happens all the time actually. Peoples proportions aren't really as regular/normal as you might think.

I have a buddy who is an inch taller than me. We both measured our RAD recently as we're trying to figure out what size new bikes to get in the future. And as it turns out, my RAD is 1-2in taller than his.

He has +3 ape index, while I have a + 0. And my inseam is longer than his (he borrowed my bike as a demo, and had to lower the seat by about an inch). So, apparently I'm all legs, with normal length arms. While he has shorter legs, and long arms, giving him a shorter RAD than me, despite me being an inch shorter.


----------



## Dan75r (Oct 7, 2021)

NWA_Tre said:


> I can't imagine the bike fits you if the seat is too high at full drop. Obviously you want the knee ever-so-slightly bent, but the leg mostly straight while seated with the pedal down all the way. If you have to tippy-toe to get to the bottom of the pedal stroke, and the seat won't go down any more, the bike is too big.


My leg is slightly bent at the bottom of the stroke like it should be. I would just like to have the seat slightly lower than the handlebars. But because the seat post is quite long and the bottle holder lugs are in the way, seat even with the bars is as low as it will go. I want to trim 50mm off the post so I can have it a little bit lower.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

Dan75r said:


> My leg is slightly bent at the bottom of the stroke like it should be. I would just like to have the seat slightly lower than the handlebars.


Higher rise handlebars would solve that.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

ocnLogan said:


> This sort of thing happens all the time actually. Peoples proportions aren't really as regular/normal as you might think.
> 
> I have a buddy who is an inch taller than me. We both measured our RAD recently as we're trying to figure out what size new bikes to get in the future. And as it turns out, my RAD is 1-2in taller than his.
> 
> He has +3 ape index, while I have a + 0. And my inseam is longer than his (he borrowed my bike as a demo, and had to lower the seat by about an inch). So, apparently I'm all legs, with normal length arms. While he has shorter legs, and long arms, giving him a shorter RAD than me, despite me being an inch shorter.


Legs and arms, distance from feet to hands...that's RAD. Bodies are weird.


----------



## codahale (Oct 6, 2018)

NWA_Tre said:


> your arms are FIVE INCHES longer than your height?!?


76” tall, 81” wingspan. Lemme know if you need anything off the top shelf.


----------



## Dan75r (Oct 7, 2021)

NWA_Tre said:


> Higher rise handlebars would solve that.


I maxed out my budget buying the bike, so no money for new bars. Won't cost me anything to trim the seat post.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

Dan75r said:


> I maxed out my budget buying the bike, so no money for new bars. Won't cost me anything to trim the seat post.


True, but you’ll be in a really bad pedaling position.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

NWA_Tre said:


> Lee would probably say in this last shot that the bike was too big, because he should be able to pull the bars to his body with no bend in the arms...


My thoughts as well


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

Fuse6F said:


> My thoughts as well


Do you have a Fuse 6Fattie? I bought my son one used for $800 this summer and he loves it! OP, Sorry for OT 😉


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

NWA_Tre said:


> Do you have a Fuse 6Fattie? I bought my son one used for $800 this summer and he loves it! OP, Sorry for OT 😉


Yes. A 2016. It was fun! Have you found tires for it?


----------



## rton20s (Aug 27, 2010)

KobayashiMaru said:


> Sadly, yes.
> 
> Regarding geometry and its trends... The Grim Donut. If The Grim Donut is the evolution of modern bikes, what will The Grim Donut to The Grim Donut look like? I'm too scared to imagine.


The evolution of the Grim Donut exists thanks to Pivot and it was revealed this weekend at Sea Otter...


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

Fuse6F said:


> Yes. A 2016. It was fun! Have you found tires for it?


A 2017, running maxxis 2.8 f/r. I had a Duro Crux 3.0 on the front but it was too round. I like the 2.8’s at lower pressure (somewhere around 15-19) but haven’t found the perfect pressures yet.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

rton20s said:


> The evolution of the Grim Donut exists thanks to Pivot and it was revealed this weekend at Sea Otter...


The place that made the GD also made Pivot's aluminum frames.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

TheOtherOne said:


> He couldn't do much for me on a trade-in but suggested I give The Pro's Closet a try to see what they would offer for the bike. Although it was a loss from what I originally paid it was still $1000 more than the dealer could do. So I took the hit, sold the size L and purchased the size M/L. And although it was a money losing deal for me I'm very glad I made the change. I've been riding 6 days a week, improving, steadily gaining confidence, really enjoying myself and I haven't been on the road bike in weeks.


A few years back a geo chart error found me riding a frame that was too small. One ride later I was ordering the next size up and selling the one ride old frame for a loss. Painful, but I don't regret the swap at all. 

Being on the wrong size bike is the worst thing ever so getting that decision right is crucial. I'm glad you ended up on a well fitting frame in the end.


----------



## shakazulu12 (Jul 14, 2015)

I bought Lee's book a few months back when this topic was being rehashed again. I always figure I can learn something from just about anything. Sometimes the thing I learn is the opposite of what the lesson is trying to teach. I get what Lee is trying to get at with RAD and RAAD. But, as others have mentioned. At 5'11" with a 6'6" wingspan, it just didn't work out for me. But that doesn't mean I didn't pick up other tidbits of information that I found useful. I don't think there are many absolutes when it comes to bike fit and it's simply way to much of an individual thing to encompass in a single equation. That being said, I was able to look at the formula and understand better what I may or may not feel on a bike. Demo a few with different figures and get a solid understanding of what I prefer my triangle to look like. Then was able to order a bike without ever having sat on it, that feels just about perfect now that it's here. So I can't say it was a waste of 40 bucks or whatever it was.


----------



## Blatant (Apr 13, 2005)

^^ This.

As stated, Lee’s system doesn’t work for me personally, but that doesn’t mean he’s not into something.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/bike-fashion-vs-fit-is-longer-always-better-opinion.html



I like this article. It doesn't use hard numbers but I think the concept has merit.


----------



## Monty219 (Oct 26, 2020)

jeremy3220 said:


> https://www.pinkbike.com/news/bike-fashion-vs-fit-is-longer-always-better-opinion.html
> 
> 
> 
> I like this article. It doesn't use hard numbers but I think the concept has merit.


For what its worth i have no problem cleaning all of the same super tech climbs on my longest slackest bike, the trade off in wider turning radius and steering flop is offset by the ability to take more extremely different lines with front and rear wheels and the slack HTA helps with the approach angle when attacking big step ups on steep terrain.


----------



## KobayashiMaru (Apr 25, 2020)

jeremy3220 said:


> I like this article. It doesn't use hard numbers but I think the concept has merit.


I liked it. Interesting that the author is within an inch of my height with the same inseam and prefers a bike with a reach between 450 and 475. I checked the geo chart on my Spark, which feels too big, and the reach is 460. So now I'm all sorts of confused. If the author is onto something, I should be right at home on this bike but it feels huge and unwieldy.

I look at as many of these sort of threads as I can to see what I should be riding, but I haven't ever found anything definitive. And good grief, you'd think something like a half inch or an inch of difference wouldn't be such a big deal, but it absolutely can be.

I want to know where to turn to get the dialed-in fit the author mentioned that XC riders have... That's like 98 percent of what I do and 100 percent of what I prefer.


----------



## Nick_M (Jan 16, 2015)

Sometimes it looks like people start those topics to justify either old bike that they have or lack of skills that they need to ride modern geo;

Modern geometry allows you to to choose 1 of 3 sizes for example person 6’1 could choose M/L/XL or s3/s4/s5 ( per specialized)

Industry offer u great variety, you choose to ride either comfortable or big(small) bike for you skills and trails;

Side example ski’s:

Novice riders typically ride shorter skis with shorter turning radius, the more rider progress and the more speed rider wants - the longer skis they choose, the stiffer boots they choose the wider radius etc;

None complain that ski industry produce too long skis; 

Just pick the ride size to you ability and start from there;

When u feel you outgrow equipment- move to the next

There is no magic number, all people are different with different skills, also people do not deadlift their bike for reference (as some you tubers mentioned) 


Cheers


----------



## Monty219 (Oct 26, 2020)

Nick_M said:


> Sometimes it looks like people start those topics to justify either old bike that they have or lack of skills that they need to ride modern geo;
> 
> Modern geometry allows you to to choose 1 of 3 sizes for example person 6’1 could choose M/L/XL or s3/s4/s5 ( per specialized)
> 
> ...


What about hike-a-bike sections bro? JK, good point.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Nick_M said:


> Modern geometry allows you to to choose 1 of 3 sizes for example person 6’1 could choose M/L/XL or s3/s4/s5 ( per specialized)
> 
> Industry offer u great variety, you choose to ride either comfortable or big(small) bike for you skills and trails;
> 
> ...


tall guy rant coming 

At 6'6" i tested a s5 sj evo at the lbs parking lot. It was unrideable for me. The dropper post couldnt go high enough for me to reach a seated pedalling height. The stack was ridiculously low and around the top of my knees when standing.


Where is my s7 and s8 that i can size up to if i want?


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

Nick_M said:


> Sometimes it looks like people start those topics to justify either old bike that they have or lack of skills that they need to ride modern geo;


Interesting comment about skills. I think many feel the opposite, that these super long slack modern bikes are compensating for a lack of bike handling skills. Longer slacker bikes are much easier to ride down chunky or gnarly descents because they are more stable. It's on the super techy, narrow, windy trails that require better bike handling and which more intermediate riders tend to avoid that a too-long bike reveals its shortcomings.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

KobayashiMaru said:


> I liked it. Interesting that the author is within an inch of my height with the same inseam and prefers a bike with a reach between 450 and 475. I checked the geo chart on my Spark, which feels too big, and the reach is 460. So now I'm all sorts of confused. If the author is onto something, I should be right at home on this bike but it feels huge and unwieldy.
> 
> I look at as many of these sort of threads as I can to see what I should be riding, but I haven't ever found anything definitive. And good grief, you'd think something like a half inch or an inch of difference wouldn't be such a big deal, but it absolutely can be.
> 
> I want to know where to turn to get the dialed-in fit the author mentioned that XC riders have... That's like 98 percent of what I do and 100 percent of what I prefer.


What stem length are you running?


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

NWA_Tre said:


> Lee would probably say in this last shot that the bike was too big, because he should be able to pull the bars to his body with no bend in the arms...


No. He'd probably give a virtual high five and then say that you can't really tell much about RAD from the picture, since the rider is bent over a bit and not at full extension.


----------



## Mebaru (Jun 5, 2017)

Nick_M said:


> Sometimes it looks like people start those topics to justify either old bike that they have or lack of skills that they need to ride modern geo;
> 
> Modern geometry allows you to to choose 1 of 3 sizes for example person 6’1 could choose M/L/XL or s3/s4/s5 ( per specialized)
> 
> Industry offer u great variety, you choose to ride either comfortable or big(small) bike for you skills and trails;


Absolutely agree on both points.
I see people criticize modern trail geo and then I learn their main ride is some Karate Monkey with rigid fork or they only ride old-school xcish trails where endurance plays much bigger role than bike skills... making me wonder if they really know/understand what they are talking about.

If you are experienced rider with developed skills and you know you need a smaller bike - just downsize or look for a bike manufacturer with less radical geometry offerings. There are still plenty of those. Then fine tune everything with stem and handlebar

I believe that modern geo is generally better for a gravity trail riding. And I generally don't believe in universal fitting systems, only in common sense recommendations as a "neutral factory settings" to start with. You need a lot of personal experience and developed skills to dial your fit on the bike. If you don't have those changing frame reach, stem length, handlebar width and rise etc will only feel different but you will have hard times justifying if it right or not.


----------



## Bacon Fat (Mar 11, 2016)

Mebaru said:


> Absolutely agree on both points.
> I see people criticize modern trail geo and then I learn their main ride is some Karate Monkey with rigid fork or they only ride old-school xcish trails where endurance plays much bigger role than bike skills... making me wonder if they really know/understand what they are talking about.


It goes both ways. People that shuttle to the top or ride a fire road up aren't going to understand why someone would want a KM. Doesn't mean either doesn't know what they are taking about or have skill. Not all trails are the same, get the bike that best fits your trails and riding style.


----------



## Mebaru (Jun 5, 2017)

Bacon Fat said:


> It goes both ways. People that shuttle to the top or ride a fire road up aren't going to understand why someone would want a KM.


I perfectly understand why people want rigid bikes, and I own myself a rigid fat bike I use a lot for adventure-riding, which is basically some twisted form of XC riding. I don't immediately want slacker-longer geo on that bike. But my conclusions doesn't extend to every other mtb bike from the point of owning one bike only which isn't even used in gravity riding.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

NO IT'S NOT!
Every bike I have ever owned has been too small for me. The current crop is finally big enough, but now the rear ends are way too short, like 30-40mm too short.


----------



## KobayashiMaru (Apr 25, 2020)

jeremy3220 said:


> What stem length are you running?


70mm came with the bike. I've thought about going shorter, but the whole bike itself seems so big, mostly in terms of height and wheelbase. A shorter stem might crisp up the steering, but I assume it wouldn't make the whole bike seem smaller, so I haven't swapped it. And measuring my medium Niner (which I feel like is my Goldilocks bike)... the RAD is within an inch between the two bikes.

I should try a shorter one though. It's a lot easier than getting a new bike.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

KobayashiMaru said:


> 70mm came with the bike. I've thought about going shorter, but the whole bike itself seems so big, mostly in terms of height and wheelbase. A shorter stem might crisp up the steering, but I assume it wouldn't make the whole bike seem smaller, so I haven't swapped it. And measuring my medium Niner (which I feel like is my Goldilocks bike)... the RAD is within an inch between the two bikes.
> 
> I should try a shorter one though. It's a lot easier than getting a new bike.


That's part of the equation. You have to account for stem length in bike sizing. A shorter stem definitely makes the bike feel a bit smaller (may not solve all your issues obviously).


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

alexbn921 said:


> The current crop is finally big enough, *but now the rear ends are way too short, like 30-40mm too short.*




If you want 19" chainstays I'm pretty sure Jones is still making frames.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

*OneSpeed* said:


> If you want 19" chainstays I'm pretty sure Jones is still making frames.


I want a 150-160 travel bike with decent weight distribution. Not the same rear on a front triangle that covers 100mm.
My latest bike was purchased BECAUSE it had extremely long stays and 180mm of travel .


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

mikesee said:


> I'm learning something from these last few posts -- yours, Blatant's, OneSpeed's, and Ocn's.
> 
> That "weird fad" seems to be fading hand in hand with the relevance/prevalence of climbing tech trail or descending anything slow/techy enough to be thought of as trialsy. When climbing fireroads or doubletracks -- or shuttling -- CS length matters not. Descending at mach chicken where the answer is usually "go faster and plow" and short stays aren't important.
> 
> ...


picking your bike based on needs makes sense, I like short chainstays for these reasons too.

in terms of sizing, I set my bike up to be comfortable and to accentuate my uses.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

How do you overcome fear of crash on new geo rig....


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

Nurse Ben said:


> picking your bike based on needs makes sense, I like short chainstays for these reasons too.
> 
> in terms of sizing, I set my bike up to be comfortable and to accentuate my uses.


Yep. I’ve ridden bikes are both ends of the spectrum (too big and too small). The best fitting bikes I’ve ridden was the original Ibis Mojo HD and my current Canfield Balance (DH bikes don’t count, and I’m still breaking in the Tilt). Both have very different geometries, and I wish I took measurements of my HD when I had it.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

stripes said:


> Yep. I’ve ridden bikes are both ends of the spectrum (too big and too small). The best fitting bikes I’ve ridden was the original Ibis Mojo HD and my current Canfield Balance (DH bikes don’t count, and I’m still breaking in the Tilt). Both have very different geometries, and I wish I took measurements of my HD when I had it.


Stripes is hazing a Tilt! 😁


----------



## RollinBeHatin (Aug 29, 2021)

I noticed bike sizing has changed over the years 

I was recently gifted a 2014 Giant composite TCR. It's a size medium. Looking at the NEW Giant charts, my height (I know its an overtly simplified way of sizing the right bike fit but hey it's a gift so I don't have a say on that matter) should be on the lower end of the M fit.

However when I dig up old sizing charts for the bike, it seems like the 2014 M fit is too big for me.

Doing a geometry comparison

TCR Composite 2014 vs TCR 2020 (Both M sizes)
Reach : 392mm vs 383mm
Stack : 566mm vs 545mm
Top Tube : 555mm vs 550mm

Which makes me realize I'm actually stretching myself to fit the 2014 frame since I ride a current S from Giant.


Is this due to marketing or have we gotten larger over the years? 
Like It's easier to sell a bike to someone when they walk into the shop and they're like OH YOU'RE AN M rather than telling them they are "small"

Reminds me of the story about how L sized condoms are actually normal.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Stems have gotten shorter too. Don't look at one number and cry marketing.


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

jeremy3220 said:


> Stems have gotten shorter too. Don't look at one number and cry marketing.


Depends on the time frame. My 2017 Bronson came with a 50mm stem. Stems haven't gotten much shorter since then, but reach has continued to grow. For example the 2021 model of the same bike has 30mm longer reach in size Medium, but a 42mm stem.


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

kpdemello said:


> Depends on the time frame. My 2017 Bronson came with a 50mm stem. Stems haven't gotten much shorter since then, but reach has continued to grow. For example the 2021 model of the same bike has 30mm longer reach in size Medium, but a 42mm stem.


Stems are widely available from 32-60mm. You can adjust your reach with those quite easily, and have been for years. 

There’s so much more than reach that affects fit: stack height, seat tube angle, BB height, and head tube angle. 

People strictly use reach for sizing is short-sighted.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

kpdemello said:


> Depends on the time frame. My 2017 Bronson came with a 50mm stem. Stems haven't gotten much shorter since then, but reach has continued to grow. For example the 2021 model of the same bike has 30mm longer reach in size Medium, but a 42mm stem.


My point is lots of things have changed...stems, STA, HTA, etc.

A bunch of riders complained about how undersized Santa Cruz's we're at the time.
Bike companies are giving people what they ask for and this forum has bad habit of revising history and calling everything marketing.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

*OneSpeed* said:


> If you want 19" chainstays I'm pretty sure Jones is still making frames.


Everyone seems to be going to longer chainstays and I am not here for it.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

93EXCivic said:


> Everyone seems to be going to longer chainstays and I am not here for it.


I think most are just asking for balanced bike with proportional chainstays. The problem we have run into is the front end seems to be getting the modern touch, but the back of the bike is still old-school and and is staying the same.

Fine for the the smaller sizes, but when going to the bigger sizes and the front gets longer, the back end needs to get longer too in order to have a balanced bike. Many companies are still stuck on the old Gary Fisher Genesis geometry concepts from the early 2000; longer front end and short rear end. It’s 2021 now, we know better.


----------



## Impetus (Aug 10, 2014)

singletrackmack said:


> I think most are just asking for balanced bike with proportional chainstays. The problem we have run into is the front end seems to be getting the modern touch, but the back of the bike is still old-school and and is staying the same.
> 
> Fine for the the smaller sizes, but when going to the bigger sizes and the front gets longer, the back end needs to get longer too in order to have a balanced bike. Many companies are still stuck on the old Gary Fisher Genesis geometry concepts from the early 2000; longer front end and short rear end. It’s 2021 now, we know better.


I have a friend who's 6'5", on his XXL Hightower which already has a pretty slack STA, his seat is _literally_ over or behind the rear axle on any decent uphill grade. It makes for some pretty amusing antics on his part when attempting techy climbs. 
I laugh, but we've had many conversations how bad it sucks to have chainstays 80-90mm less than the reach. 

No body wants a 1400mm wheelbase bike, but I guess you can't have your cake and eat it, too.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

singletrackmack said:


> I think most are just asking for balanced bike with proportional chainstays. The problem we have run into is the front end seems to be getting the modern touch, but the back of the bike is still old-school and and is staying the same.
> 
> Fine for the the smaller sizes, but when going to the bigger sizes and the front gets longer, the back end needs to get longer too in order to have a balanced bike. Many companies are still stuck on the old Gary Fisher Genesis geometry concepts from the early 2000; longer front end and short rear end. It’s 2021 now, we know better.





Impetus said:


> I have a friend who's 6'5", on his XXL Hightower which already has a pretty slack STA, his seat is _literally_ over or behind the rear axle on any decent uphill grade. It makes for some pretty amusing antics on his part when attempting techy climbs.
> I laugh, but we've had many conversations how bad it sucks to have chainstays 80-90mm less than the reach.
> 
> No body wants a 1400mm wheelbase bike, but I guess you can't have your cake and eat it, too.


I'm 6'3" and love short chainstays, no drawback for me. 415mm chainstays are super fun. Most of my bikes are 425-433mm.

I've had older bikes with 440-455mm chainstays, still have one or two in that range, and I'm never going back. Shorter is better across the board. 

(I don't ride fire roads or winch and plummet, unless I'm out of town somewhere.)


----------



## attaboy (Apr 4, 2008)

singletrackmack said:


> I think most are just asking for balanced bike with proportional chainstays. The problem we have run into is the front end seems to be getting the modern touch, but the back of the bike is still old-school and and is staying the same.
> 
> Fine for the the smaller sizes, but when going to the bigger sizes and the front gets longer, the back end needs to get longer too in order to have a balanced bike. Many companies are still stuck on the old Gary Fisher Genesis geometry concepts from the early 2000; longer front end and short rear end. It’s 2021 now, we know better.


Seems to me they actually worked hard to get chainstays shorter. I recall a long thread on Lenze bikes and how they innovated short chainstays with longer front for 29ers and was key to bike handling. My early model Niners had very long chainstays and was much criticized and unpopular for this among other geometry design choices. 

When you’re 6’5 your ass is gonna hang way back because of seat tube angle over that distance which is made more extreme if you have a seat tube with a bend and geo chart therefore is based on “effective “ seat tube angle. 

I am disproportionately long in the legs and 6’2”. I was behind axle on prior bike, Niner with big bend in already slack 72.5 effective STA and 450mm chainstays. I’m well in front of axle now with 76 true STA and 435mm CS. And, cockpit shrank quite a bit in spite of 53mm longer reach which I think is an outdated measurement (seems better to measure from top middle of head tube in straight line to middle of where that line intersects middle of seat tube). I hence feel much more balanced on the bike.


----------



## Impetus (Aug 10, 2014)

*OneSpeed* said:


> I'm 6'3" and love short chainstays, no drawback for me. 415mm chainstays are super fun. Most of my bikes are 425-433mm.
> 
> I've had older bikes with 440-455mm chainstays, still have one or two in that range, and I'm never going back. Shorter is better across the board.
> 
> (I don't ride fire roads or winch and plummet, unless I'm out of town somewhere.)


I guess it's good we have choices and not every bike is the same.
I think my friend's biggest contention is less chainstay, and more the STA being stupid slack (73°?)... But then, in this very thread, only a few pages ago was at least one post about how steep STA's were "bad" for tall riders. 

I do know I don't envy riders over 6'0". I freely admit life is much easier at my very average 5'9".


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

It's not just bikes. Being outside the norm is a pain, tall or short (I'm over 6', my wife's 5').


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Impetus said:


> I guess it's good we have choices and not every bike is the same.
> I think my friend's biggest contention is less chainstay, and more the STA being stupid slack (73°?)... But then, in this very thread, only a few pages ago was at least one post about how steep STA's were "bad" for tall riders.


For sure having options is a good thing.

I have bikes with the STA all over the map. My old school bikes with long chainstays and short Reach typically have 72-73 STA. My modern bikes have up to 78 STA with the saddle slammed forward.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

*OneSpeed* said:


> I'm 6'3" and love short chainstays, no drawback for me. 415mm chainstays are super fun. Most of my bikes are 425-433mm.
> 
> I've had older bikes with 440-455mm chainstays, still have one or two in that range, and I'm never going back. Shorter is better across the board.
> 
> (I don't ride fire roads or winch and plummet, unless I'm out of town somewhere.)


Yeah when demos were still happening I found that in general I had more fun on shorter chainstay bikes. I am 6'2". I am not a racer just ride for fun so I just want something that is super fun to ride I also don't love the super reach either though, 475-490mm seems to work best for me. Have tried some +500mm reach bikes not a fan.


----------



## OldSchoolMBer (May 25, 2013)

attaboy said:


> I am disproportionately long in the legs and 6’2”. I was behind axle on prior bike, Niner with big bend in already slack 72.5 effective STA and 450mm chainstays. I’m well in front of axle now with 76 true STA and 435mm CS. And, cockpit shrank quite a bit in spite of 53mm longer reach which I think is an outdated measurement (seems better to measure from top middle of head tube in straight line to middle of where that line intersects middle of seat tube). I hence feel much more balanced on the bike.


I agree. I'm somewhat new to modern geometry but it increasingly appears to me that reach is becoming less useful as a means of comparison as frame design evolves. Sort of like seat tube length used to be ubiquitous too but it's practically nonexistent now. 

I remember how stretched out the riding positions were in the 80's/90's. Doesn't matter what the modern reach number is, my 2020 Nimble 9 is huge overall compared to those old bikes but the riding position is still shorter and more upright now. 

Slacker HA pushes the bars back towards the rider so the reach has to increase to maintain the riding position. Shorter stems pull the bars back to the rider, reach has to increase again. Steeping the STA effectively brings the bars closer, increase the reach again. If bikes utilize those design features there's no choice but to increase reach otherwise the riding position gets too cramped. As far as I can tell, effective top tube length, or measuring from the bars to the seat tube to take into account stem length, is a more direct measurement of how stretched out the riding position will feel.


----------



## Impetus (Aug 10, 2014)

OldSchoolMBer said:


> As far as I can tell, effective top tube length, or measuring from the bars to the seat tube to take into account stem length, is a more direct measurement of how stretched out the riding position will feel.


ETT tells you how long the bike feels while seated.
Reach tells you how long the bike feels while standing.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

93EXCivic said:


> Yeah when demos were still happening I found that in general I had more fun on shorter chainstay bikes. I am 6'2". I am not a racer just ride for fun so I just want something that is super fun to ride I also don't love the super reach either though, 475-490mm seems to work best for me. Have tried some +500mm reach bikes not a fan.


I have two bikes with a 510mm Reach and I could definitely go longer. 50mm stem on one, 60mm on the other. 

I don't know that I need a longer FC necessarily, but for sure If I was shopping for a new bike and it had a 520mm Reach I would not hesitate.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

*OneSpeed* said:


> I have two bikes with a 510mm Reach and I could definitely go longer. 50mm stem on one, 60mm on the other.
> 
> I don't know that I need a longer FC necessarily, but for sure If I was shopping for a new bike and it had a 520mm Reach I would not hesitate.


I tried out the Honzo in XL and L, Process 156 in XL and L and a Norco (maybe Fluid can't remember) L and XL and on all of them I definitely preferred the L. 

Currently have a Ragley Big Wig XL with 475mm reach with a 55mm stem. I also have tried out the super short stem and personally not wild about the effect on steering with that. I like a ~50mm stem


----------



## OldSchoolMBer (May 25, 2013)

Impetus said:


> ETT tells you how long the bike feels while seated.
> Reach tells you how long the bike feels while standing.


I hear ya. The comment about measuring from the bars to the seat tube was about a way to compare bikes over time since these discussions tend to weave back and forth between old and new school. Frame measurements are important no doubt, but since the stems vary from 30mm? on the short end now to ~150mm on the long end before, there's 120ish mm unaccounted for if frame measurements are used alone. Reach in particular seems to throw off people like me that are still transitioning from old to new designs. 

When I bought a modern bike last year, like is so commonly discussed here, I was fretting over which size to get being on the cusp of sizes. My brain was still thinking in terms of how stretched out a too large of a bike would've felt 30 yrs ago. I opted for a large anyway and it's been perfectly fine. Having the bike in hand now it's easier to see the bigger reach numbers these days are just a necessary adjustment to the other dimensional changes.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

I don’t think another person can tell you what works best for you because their experiencr is individual, even if they have experience fitting other riders: it’s called bias.

It’s best to develop your own understanding through experience, then when you feel like pushing limits you can make small adjustments and test them out over time

All these “theories” about best fit are just opinions, and we all know the old adage about opinions being like arseholes ….


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

Impetus said:


> ETT tells you how long the bike feels while seated.
> Reach tells you how long the bike feels while standing.


I think the reach would also apply to the sitting position if the seat tube angles were consistent across frame manufacturers. Cervelo was the first company to really push the stack and reach measurements on bike fit. Road bike STAs were 73 pretty much across most manufacturers. The stack and reach can get you to a similar fit when looking for a bike from another manufacturer. There's so much inconsistency in MTBs that even comparing the reach won't guarantee your new bike will actually fit you. It looks like the RAD measurement is a more consistent number to get a similar fit when it comes to a MTB. Now I'm just talking about whatever your current RAD number your happy with and not necessarily using Lee's formula.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

I love short chain stays and would hate for all the mfgs to make chain stays proportionate with the front triangle.

This ^ might make sense for certain uses, but not for tech climbing and certainly not for any uses that require agility at low speeds.

I ride a size large Canfield Tilt 29er which has 425mm chain stays and a size 3 short (large) GG Shred Dogg 27.5 which has 423mm chain stays, and I love them both!


----------



## frdfandc (Sep 5, 2007)

Nurse Ben said:


> I don’t think another person can tell you what works best for you because their experiencr is individual, even if they have experience fitting other riders: it’s called bias.
> 
> It’s best to develop your own understanding through experience, then when you feel like pushing limits you can make small adjustments and test them out over time
> 
> All these “theories” about best fit are just opinions, and we all know the old adage about opinions being like arseholes ….


There is no bias in fitting. It's experience. It's learning and actually doing it for a living. If fitting was so simple, why do people pay hundreds of dollars to have someone tell them and show them with empirical data, how their bike is to fit them properly? 

Most people don't know how to fit their bikes outside of MTBR and other cycling forums. 

Do you have people come up to you and ask what you think at your work? Is your experience going to do the talking or is it being biased? Can't be both.

Bias means being prejudiced against or in favor of something. There is no prejudices when fitting a bike. We may prefer one product over another (bias), but not when it came to the customer when actually doing the fit. 

That's what we get paid to do. So why not share our experiences with those who don't know? And make good suggestions? 

When I did fittings, I mostly listened to the customer in how they want the bike to fit with reach. Our fit machine allowed us to make unlimited adjustments. We could quick swap stems and handlebars. There were things that were a flat nope, can't do it, but mostly the fit was in the hands of the customer. We just fine tuned everything for a compromise between optimal performance and comfort. 

An EXPERIENCED fitter can spot a potential issue before it happens. 

Sent from my moto e6 using Tapatalk


----------



## Nick_M (Jan 16, 2015)

Nurse Ben said:


> I love short chain stays and would hate for all the mfgs to make chain stays proportionate with the front triangle.
> 
> This ^ might make sense for certain uses, but not for tech climbing and certainly not for any uses that require agility at low speeds.
> 
> I ride a size large Canfield Tilt 29er which has 425mm chain stays and a size 3 short (large) GG Shred Dogg 27.5 which has 423mm chain stays, and I love them both!


Same league;

It was super hard for me to find bike with long reach and super short cs, however it is doable, and super fun to ride (490 reach / 426 cs)


Cheers


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

Impetus said:


> I have a friend who's 6'5", on his XXL Hightower which already has a pretty slack STA, his seat is _literally_ over or behind the rear axle on any decent uphill grade. It makes for some pretty amusing antics on his part when attempting techy climbs.
> I laugh, but we've had many conversations how bad it sucks to have chainstays 80-90mm less than the reach.
> 
> No body wants a 1400mm wheelbase bike, but I guess you can't have your cake and eat it, too.


I haven't had that since leaving 26er bikes and I'm 6'7". I feel for your friend buying one of the 'biggest' bikes on the market and still suffering. I'd tell him my GG Trail Pistol is his answer, but it's alu and they changed the geometry when they went carbon. I love the feeling of 'not looping out' on a steep uphill.


----------



## BadgerOne (Jul 17, 2015)

Crankout said:


> How do you overcome fear of crash on new geo rig....


Speaking only for myself, not hitting the first ride like my balls are on fire seems to be a sensible approach.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

BadgerOne said:


> Speaking only for myself, not hitting the first ride like my balls are on fire seems to be a sensible approach.


The fire ants are ready to go to work!


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

I think this thread should be renamed 'your bike is probably too small for you'.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

frdfandc said:


> There is no bias in fitting. It's experience. It's learning and actually doing it for a living. If fitting was so simple, why do people pay hundreds of dollars to have someone tell them and show them with empirical data, how their bike is to fit them properly?
> 
> Most people don't know how to fit their bikes outside of MTBR and other cycling forums.
> 
> ...


There is absolutely bias in fitting. Your height, riding style, regional trail characteristics bias you towards a certain type of fit.

There is nothing wrong with this, but a good fitter should know their bias.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

LMN said:


> There is absolutely bias in fitting. Your height, riding style, regional trail characteristics bias you towards a certain type of fit.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with this, but a good fitter should know their bias.


 Couldn’t agree with this more. There is so much bias in fitting. Totally confused as to how someone who helps fit bicycles says there is no bias?!?!


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

singletrackmack said:


> Couldn’t agree with this more. There is so much bias in fitting. Totally confused as to how someone who helps fit bicycles says there is no bias?!?!


This is the problem with the one size (fitting) works for everyone methodologies. They don’t. @LMN has this nailed.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

LMN said:


> There is absolutely bias in fitting. Your height, riding style, regional trail characteristics bias you towards a certain type of fit.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with this, but a good fitter should know their bias.


Which is what led my frame building habit, decades ago. The search for purpose built bikes was many prototypes fabricated and tested.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Impetus said:


> I have a friend who's 6'5", on his XXL Hightower which already has a pretty slack STA, his seat is _literally_ over or behind the rear axle on any decent uphill grade. It makes for some pretty amusing antics on his part when attempting techy climbs.
> I laugh, but we've had many conversations how bad it sucks to have chainstays 80-90mm less than the reach.
> 
> No body wants a 1400mm wheelbase bike, but I guess you can't have your cake and eat it, too.


i sympathize. 

i remember my first lesson on chain stays.

i was riding with a gentleman of 65 years of age. he is shorter in stature and rode a full suspension bike. i was on a 2016 fuse xxl. we rode side by side up a trail and while he applied power and simply went up the hill, i applied power and lifted the tire off the ground. what stood out was that we were moving the same speed at the same place in the trail at the same time. Why... what was i doing wrong? Well my behind was literally behind the axle on that bike. my cg was way up high and with a short base to the triangle (contact patch to contact patch to cg) there was no hope. a sta change would help, but both a sta and cs change would really help.

thats one reason im pushing for a longer cs bike.

i sold that bike for a 2018 stumpjumper. i would like it to have a big longer front end and be a bit slacker, but given the short rear end, its a better compromise that it isnt a more modern long reach bike.

however, when i run into berms hard. i find a tendency to overload the rear tire. my cg compresses the rear of the bike. having more cs would put weight on the front more balancing the bike out. imo in this type of situation, sta is not a factor.


also, if your seated position overloads the rear tire then the design of the rear tire and its psi becomes more of a factor to overall bike efficiency. moving more forward ( as modern sta do) causes a more equal load carry across the front and rear of the bike and you can feel the better rolling efficiency. course im 255lbs so there is more weight to magnify this effect.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Fuse6F said:


> i remember my first lesson on chain stays.
> 
> thats one reason im pushing for a longer cs bike.


There's a LOT more to keeping the front wheel down on climbs than just chainstay length. First and foremost, technique. But also the whole frame geometry (not just chainstay length) including BB drop, front-center, Stack, STA, wheelbase, fit/bike setup, etc. Any one of those dimensions can have a significant impact on how a bike behaves on a steep climb. 

I don't have any problems climbing steep tech climbs with short chainstays on my XL bikes. A well designed frame will be balanced for both climbing and descending. Short chainstays on big frames require a longer front center and steeper STA to keep your weight well balanced between the wheels. 

Perhaps your bike doesn't suit your riding style or skill level, or maybe it just wasn't designed well.


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

*OneSpeed* said:


> There's a LOT more to keeping the front wheel down on climbs than just chainstay length. First and foremost, technique. But also the whole frame geometry (not just chainstay length) including BB drop, front-center, Stack, STA, wheelbase, fit/bike setup, etc. Any one of those dimensions can have a significant impact on how a bike behaves on a steep climb.


You're right, but if your sitting position is close to or beyond being over the rear axle then you're going to have a lot of trouble. That can be fixed a lot of ways but it's harder to apply those other fixes if that's the starting point.


----------



## KobayashiMaru (Apr 25, 2020)

*OneSpeed* said:


> Perhaps your bike doesn't suit your riding style or skill level


After yesterday, I'm totally on board with this being most of what makes a person feel a bike is the wrong size.

On the trails I ride, my '18 Spark feels bigger and slower than my '09 SIR 9 hardtail, but it's workable, and the difference in speed and agility isn't vast... at worst it's a fair but frustrating trade for comfort and stability.

I rode a trail that was new to me yesterday on the Spark and the whole time I was certain the hardtail would have been much better for it. It was full of tight switchbacks, hairpin turns in the middle of short, steep climbs, abrupt changes of direction with narrow lines between trees, it was completely smooth with no roots or steps, and hardly any descents longer than a dozen yards.

It was just too big and long and slack for that trail.

It feels to me that modern geo slants toward descending more than anything else, and that's logical in a lot of places, but it's a bad thing in other places.

I took my Spark to the Big South Fork IMBA Epic near Knoxville a few months ago. It served me well on 37.5 miles of that trail, so it's enough of a cross country bike, but that trail I rode yesterday... it's too much of a different kind of bike.

It might not help that the trail I rode yesterday was laid out entirely by one or two guys that admit they hardly ever ride their mountain bikes and spend almost all of their energy on time trial road bikes or running marathons. They even said after they first laid the trails down they realized a lot of it wasn't rideable. They had to make the curves more gradual and reroute some of the climbs.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Fuse6F said:


> i sympathize.
> 
> i remember my first lesson on chain stays.
> 
> ...


I think you should have just stood up and continued pedaling up the hill. 
I'm not 6'5" but climbing was the sole strong point of short chain stays for me due to high traction. I don't feel 10-15mm of CS length is going to make that much difference when it comes to your center of gravity location over the axle while on climbs. I mean you can easily shift your CoG 100mm just by slightly leaning forward. 

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

I think the bit about the trails coming from those who don't ride bikes might be a thing!


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

Suns_PSD said:


> I think you should have just stood up and continued pedaling up the hill.
> I'm not 6'5" but climbing was the sole strong point of short chain stays for me due to high traction. I don't feel 10-15mm of CS length is going to make that much difference when it comes to your center of gravity location over the axle while on climbs. I mean you can easily shift your CoG 100mm just by slightly leaning forward.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


When you're tall, it does.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Suns_PSD said:


> I think you should have just stood up and continued pedaling up the hill.
> I'm not 6'5" but climbing was the sole strong point of short chain stays for me due to high traction. I don't feel 10-15mm of CS length is going to make that much difference when it comes to your center of gravity location over the axle while on climbs. I mean you can easily shift your CoG 100mm just by slightly leaning forward.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


Short chain stays give you more traction while standing, but reduce your loop out angle. The taller you are the closer you are to being behind the rear axle on a climb. 

Older short front center bike actual had better weight distribution while standing and where possible to 2 wheel drift.

Current XL and XXL bike basically never loose rear end traction and the front always goes first. This forces you to put far too much weight on the bars. Lengthening the rear stays take weight off your hands while standing and lets you absorb the trail with your legs.


----------



## 2021Mach6 (Jan 19, 2021)

kpdemello said:


> I've been looking at bikes to replace my 2017 Bronson v2. What amazes me is that looking at geometry charts, newer bikes are basically a size larger. My medium Bronson has 425 reach, while newer bikes have 440 to 450, which equates to a Bronson v2 size large. And most of the other measurements are quite similar apart from seat tube angle, which in my opinion doesn't affect fit because I'm not seated during the important parts of the ride. It seems a bit nuts and I'm debating getting a size small for my next bike. Maybe next year I can actually demo something.
> 
> The thing is, when I got my Bronson v2, it was a lot longer and slacker than the bike I had before it. I think the industry has found a limit to this stuff and probably went over it a bit.


You're 100% right about that ... I'm short, 5'6 (even though I put 5'7 on my driver's license in a moment of insecurity). I'm right in between M and S ... I have a medium hardtail from 2016 and it's about the same size as my small 2021 bike. I'd originally asked for a medium Mach 6 since I've always sized up cause I hate feeling cramped. Fortunately I was able to see one before ordering mine, and was surprised how gigantic it was. 

Felt like I was getting on a 250cc dirt bike!


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

After reading the pro-short-chainstay and pro-long-chainstay arguments within this thread, I feel there's a pretty good chance that this will be solved pretty soon here on the internet.

Carry on guys, you'll reach agreement soon. Meanwhile I have a bike I love to ride (won't disclose its chainstay length) -- I'm going riding.
=sParty


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

alexbn921 said:


> Short chain stays give you more traction while standing, but reduce your loop out angle. The taller you are the closer you are to being behind the rear axle on a climb.
> 
> Older short front center bike actual had better weight distribution while standing and where possible to 2 wheel drift.
> 
> Current XL and XXL bike basically never loose rear end traction and the front always goes first. This forces you to put far too much weight on the bars. Lengthening the rear stays take weight off your hands while standing and lets you absorb the trail with your legs.


Yes, I've been preaching these exact points for sometime now.

I find short chain stays are positively awful on L & XL sized bikes. The arguments for short chain stays are absurd to me, people seem to indicate that they can't fit between a turn with a 5' radius because of 5mm of chain stay length. LOL

Ultimately, it's like riding a sport bike: only a minority of people know how to ride them to a level where handling deficiencies become apparent, the rest think all is dandy.

However, I was just addressing the 'I loop out statement'. It's not that long chain stays aren't needed, it's just that wheeling up hill suggests a technique problem more than anything.


----------



## shadowsports (May 10, 2009)

(Ibis) Although I am nearly in the middle of M~L, (5'10") I know I have the right bike. I bought 2 and rode both. 50mm stems. The Med would have been super nimble and poppy, but the cockpit felt so cramped that I couldn't justify keeping it after spending $5K. When you stand up on the pedals and feel like too much of your torso and head are over the front wheel, the bike is too small for my preference.

Bike is comfortable. Reach is good, I sit almost upright.

No regrets, I have the right size bike.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

honestly, if you dont have rear tire traction on a climb, dont go looking for a short cs to solve that. you need to adjust technique, or shock tuning, or replace that worn out rounded knob tire.

if you dont understand basic triangle concept and high cg for tall people on a climb then there is nothing i can do. just banging my head against a brick wall. smaller riders sit in the pocket of the bike. just being small moves their cg lower. never mind making adjustments to technique. im saying two guys having a conversation going up the same hill side by side, neither one moving their body position and one loops out. 5'8" vs 6'6" well its bike design and how its designed for xxl there.

personally, anyone who is less than 6' tall will never experience what we are talking about. never know what unbalanced feels like. i wish they had a demo bike with a 26" rear wheel and 400mm cs for short people to play with. but they dont so we just move on.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Suns_PSD said:


> I think you should have just stood up and continued pedaling up the hill.
> I'm not 6'5" but climbing was the sole strong point of short chain stays for me due to high traction. I don't feel 10-15mm of CS length is going to make that much difference when it comes to your center of gravity location over the axle while on climbs. I mean you can easily shift your CoG 100mm just by slightly leaning forward.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


wouldnt it be nice if i didnt have to.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

I'm not quite sure I'd know what to do if I wasn't riding the rivet on steep climbs.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

LMN said:


> There is absolutely bias in fitting. Your height, riding style, regional trail characteristics bias you towards a certain type of fit.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with this, but a good fitter should know their bias.


Asking a person who is in a position of control and is supposed to be an authority, to have the insight to know their biases, yeah.

Maybe for a new rider they could seek fitting from multiple sources before buying, but for an experienced ride it's probably better if they develop their own fitting skills.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

singletrackmack said:


> I think most are just asking for balanced bike with proportional chainstays. The problem we have run into is the front end seems to be getting the modern touch, but the back of the bike is still old-school and and is staying the same.
> 
> Fine for the the smaller sizes, but when going to the bigger sizes and the front gets longer, the back end needs to get longer too in order to have a balanced bike. Many companies are still stuck on the old Gary Fisher Genesis geometry concepts from the early 2000; longer front end and short rear end. It’s 2021 now, we know better.


You're making up rules here, there's no evidence that a proportional change in chain stay length is better.

People need to decide for themselves, ideally by trying different bikes.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Nurse Ben, I just don't agree with you. The bikes handle poorly with too short of chainstays compared to the front end length. 

Riders have preferences and styles, sure. But no professional racer (in any sport) is going to intentionally choose a poor set up that pushes the front end constantly due to their 'personal tastes'.


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

Suns_PSD said:


> However, I was just addressing the 'I loop out statement'. It's not that long chain stays aren't needed, it's just that wheeling up hill suggests a technique problem more than anything.


How tall are you?


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

TooTallUK said:


> How tall are you?


5'10".

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

Suns_PSD said:


> It's not that long chain stays aren't needed, it's just that wheeling up hill suggests a technique problem more than anything.


One of the problems is that seat tube angles are almost never designed for tall people. Seat tubes originate far forward of the bottom bracket and slant back at a shallow angle. The taller you are, the more that's exacerbated, and they aren't ever adjusted forward for larger frames, so even slamming the saddle forward is never enough. Santa Cruz is particularly awful for that.

This is the best video I've ever seen on the subject: VitalMTB short-travel 29ers - stated vs. actual seat angle. It's one of the reasons I just bought a Banshee.

I'm only 6'-2" and most bikes put my ass closer to the rear axle than the bottom bracket. You know what fixing that 'technique problem' entails? Ramming the nose of the saddle up your ass. That's for someone who's not *that* much taller than average. Things suck for the über-talls.



Suns_PSD said:


> 5'10".
> 
> Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


All due respect for your other contributions, but your opinions about the bike fit issues of someone who's 'edge case' tall don't hold water.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Tall people say they loop out because their seat is too far back, short people say they loop out because their bars are too high.

Blaming equipment instead of technique is a constant regardless of height.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

LMN said:


> Tall people say they loop out because their seat is too far back, short people say they loop out because their bars are too high.
> 
> Blaming equipment instead of technique is a constant regardless of height.


Makes sense because having a poor fitting bike isn't a technique issue.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

jeremy3220 said:


> Makes sense because having a poor fitting bike isn't a technique issue.


IMHO reasons people loop out in order of priority
1. Technique
2. Seat too low
3. Suspension too soft
4. Saddle too far back
5. Bars too high

Most of the time it is technique. A rider with good technique will not loop out no matter how poorly their bike is set up. They will complain about the setup making it harder but will adjust for it.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

Try riding a gen 1 Evil Following up a steep grade at 6'2" and tell me it's technique. Of course technique compensates for the fact that you're behind the rear axle but it doesn't make it any fun or less taxing. 

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

LMN said:


> A rider with good technique will not loop out no matter how poorly their bike is set up. They will complain about the setup making it harder but will adjust for it.


So, the moral of the story is: a good rider can make up for a crappy equipment/setup/fit.

Who knew!?!


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

LMN said:


> IMHO reasons people loop out in order of priority
> 1. Technique
> 2. Seat too low
> 3. Suspension too soft
> ...


To be fair the real issue is rarely looping out but rather the effort spent to avoid it.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

schnee said:


> One of the problems is that seat tube angles are almost never designed for tall people. Seat tubes originate far forward of the bottom bracket and slant back at a shallow angle. The taller you are, the more that's exacerbated, and they aren't ever adjusted forward for larger frames, so even slamming the saddle forward is never enough. Santa Cruz is particularly awful for that.
> 
> This is the best video I've ever seen on the subject: VitalMTB short-travel 29ers - stated vs. actual seat angle. It's one of the reasons I just bought a Banshee.
> 
> ...


Fair enough. Worth noting that I'm long legged though. 

OCNLogan posted in the CS length thread that he is 6'1" tall and runs his pedal to seat height at 36.5".

I run mine at 36" on the dot on every bike measured with my handy yardstick. I also run 170 cranks which although not making my inseam longer, does in fact raise my entire body 5mm over 175 cranks. 

The 'wheelie problems' just seems a bit overexaggerated but I acknowledge, you don't know till ya know. And I'm not that tall so can't compare directly. 

GL

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

LMN said:


> A rider with good technique will not loop out no matter how poorly their bike is set up. They will complain about the setup making it harder but will adjust for it.


This is simply not true. My XL Santa Cruz blur XC was way too short for me with a super short CSL. It was impossible to stay seated on a steep climb. My seat was too far back, but it had to be. I loved that bike and the weight distribution while cornering was excellent even if it was 40mm too short. 
If you're 7 foot tall NO amount of technique will keep you from looping out on a slack seat tube with ultra short stays.

I'm only 6'5".

edit
It's like me saying that toe overlap doesn't matter and a good ride will just ride around it.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Suns_PSD said:


> Fair enough. Worth noting that I'm long legged though.
> 
> OCNLogan posted in the CS length thread that he is 6'1" tall and runs his pedal to seat height at 36.5".
> 
> ...


slide your seat back until you butt lines up with the rear axle, then go for a climb. 

seriously. not joking, just experiment for a little bit on trail. something to try and session.


also concentrate on a natural relax body position where you dont compensate to leaning forward at all. see how high you make the climb. 

then repeat w sat forward and your body shifted and compare the differences.


please report back and let us know what you find. post a couple pictures 

challenge goes out to everyone here.

fwiw my seat is at 40"


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Nurse Ben said:


> You're making up rules here, there's no evidence that a proportional change in chain stay length is better.
> 
> People need to decide for themselves, ideally by trying different bikes.


you really need to think about this comment.

if a proportional change in front center makes a bike better for a tall rider. m vs xxl frame. 

how is it that the exact same rear center is perfect for both riders?

lost some cred there on that one ben


----------



## rton20s (Aug 27, 2010)

Fuse6F said:


> slide your seat back until you butt lines up with the rear axle, then go for a climb.
> ...
> 
> fwiw my seat is at 40"


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

Suns_PSD said:


> Fair enough. Worth noting that I'm long legged though.
> 
> OCNLogan posted in the CS length thread that he is 6'1" tall and runs his pedal to seat height at 36.5".
> 
> ...


Interesting, despite being a good 3in shorter than me, you've got nearly the same saddle height. And I thought I was relatively leggy when my buddy who is 6'2", had to drop my saddle to test ride my bike .

Personally, I can't say I've ever "actually" looped out while climbing, even with short chainstays and a slack actual STA. Usually I run out of energy, gearing, or traction first, at least when actually mountain biking.

But, the effort put into NOT looping out at times, is absolutely non-trivial, even if its not huge. Like I said, sometimes I'm literally hitting the chin bar of my helmet on the stem/handlebar, as I'm actively trying to pull my chest as far forward/low to the ground as I can on some of those steeper climbs. And if the steep section is longer, that does drain you a bit (or, at least me).

For what its worth, my personal desire for chainstays being longer is mostly for when I'm riding downhill, not for climbing.

In terms of bike sizing, it seems its just becoming harder to know how to size things. As I bet most people have an ETT, and reach number they have felt comfortable on for a while. And with bikes getting larger, and seat tube angles getting steeper, you get to decide if you want to size based on your current ETT (and probably get a way longer reach), or buy based on reach (and get a way shorter ETT).


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

ocnLogan said:


> For what its worth, my personal desire for chainstays being longer is mostly for when I'm riding downhill, not for climbing.


Zactly. Though I notice the positive aspects most in blasting turns, jumps and steeps. Anywhere that "staying centered" is critical as now that window is bigger and more... centered. 
Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk


----------



## Ptor (Jan 29, 2004)

dysfunction said:


> I'm not quite sure I'd know what to do if I wasn't riding the rivet on steep climbs.


I’m with you on this. If you’re in the “right position” to be seated “normally” when you’re climbing the steepest pitches then you’re in the wrong position seated for every other moment you’re applying power to the pedals. I guess I missed the memo that moving forward on to the nose of the saddle to prevent “looping out” and to apply high peak power isn’t something mtbers are willing to do anymore. Being on the rivet for a few seconds/minutes at a time isn’t that uncomfortable!


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Ptor said:


> I’m with you on this. If you’re in the “right position” to be seated “normally” when you’re climbing the steepest pitches then you’re in the wrong position seated for every other moment you’re applying power to the pedals. I guess I missed the memo that moving forward on to the nose of the saddle to prevent “looping out” and to apply high peak power isn’t something mtbers are willing to do anymore. Being on the rivet for a few seconds/minutes at a time isn’t that uncomfortable!


Very true but you should try being tall on a bike where the saddle is nearly over the ear axle and having to do all that on mellow pitches. Not sure if anyone has brought that up yet, if so I apologize for not paying attention to the thread.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Ptor said:


> I’m with you on this. If you’re in the “right position” to be seated “normally” when you’re climbing the steepest pitches then you’re in the wrong position seated for every other moment you’re applying power to the pedals. I guess I missed the memo that moving forward on to the nose of the saddle to prevent “looping out” and to apply high peak power isn’t something mtbers are willing to do anymore. Being on the rivet for a few seconds/minutes at a time isn’t that uncomfortable!


Yep. The average MTB rider I see is seated so far to the rear of their saddle that it looks like there isn’t one. I can’t see the saddle, at all. 

Then, they “need” a steep STA for the 6.436% of their ride over a 10% grade, yet still get off and walk alarmingly often.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PhillipJ (Aug 23, 2013)

Le Duke said:


> Yep. The average MTB rider I see is seated so far to the rear of their saddle that it looks like there isn’t one. I can’t see the saddle, at all.


Sounds like their bike is (probably) too small.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

PhillipJ said:


> Sounds like their bike is (probably) too small.


Most of these people are riding 2020 or newer (“modern geometry”) bikes with fashionably short stems. 

I think they just don’t know how to climb.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Le Duke said:


> Yep. The average MTB rider I see is seated so far to the rear of their saddle that it looks like there isn’t one. I can’t see the saddle, at all.
> 
> Then, they “need” a steep STA for the 6.436% of their ride over a 10% grade, yet still get off and walk alarmingly often.
> 
> ...


Not everyone is built like a small woman. As you are.

be happy people are out on the trails. There is a bell curve for intelligence. 
Not everyone can pick up on and develop an elite level understanding of the technique of mtb. So too is the fact that not everyone has the athleticism to excell at it either.

best to encourage them when you see them.


----------



## PhillipJ (Aug 23, 2013)

Le Duke said:


> Most of these people are riding 2020 or newer (“modern geometry”) bikes with fashionably short stems.


How is that related? Are you claiming it's impossible to be on a bike that's too small because of "modern geometry"?

I'd say if people are looking for something with shorter reach and wheelbase it's quite likely they'll end up with a cramped cockpit and sitting on the rear of the saddle.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

PhillipJ said:


> How is that related? Are you claiming it's impossible to be on a bike that's too small because of "modern geometry"?
> 
> I'd say if people are looking for something with shorter reach and wheelbase it's quite likely they'll end up with a cramped cockpit and sitting on the rear of the saddle.



Or they just don’t know how to move around on the bike to account for different terrain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Le Duke said:


> Or they just don’t know how to move around on the bike to account for different terrain.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


have you ever ridden a bike that was too big for you?

what did it feel like to ride?
was it something you could adapt to?
would you buy the bike?

eg. how about we get serious and put you on a xl geometron.



https://www.pinkbike.com/news/review-geometron-g1-future-proof-adaptable.html




i bet after a month or so, you might have some very specific things you would want to change about the bike


walk a mile in someone else's shoes


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Fuse6F said:


> have you ever ridden a bike that was too big for you?
> 
> what did it feel like to ride?
> was it something you could adapt to?
> ...


So, comments questioning why people seem incapable of shifting themselves around on a bike to account for gradient turn into you wanting me to ride a bike several sizes too large. 

Can you explain the relevance of your comments? These people aren’t my height, riding a bike meant for someone your height. These are people my height riding mediums, guys 5’10” riding large frames, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rider Emeritus (Jun 26, 2021)

Many of the comments from those of you who are in the 6' to 6'2" range really resonate with me (I'm 6'1.25" with long legs and arms). 



Suns_PSD said:


> OCNLogan posted in the CS length thread that he is 6'1" tall and runs his pedal to seat height at 36.5".
> 
> I run mine at 36" on the dot on every bike measured with my handy yardstick. I also run 170 cranks which although not making my inseam longer, does in fact raise my entire body 5mm over 175 cranks.


Mine is at about 38" with 170mm cranks, saddle moved all the way forward on the rails. Today's steeper (effective) seat tube angles a are huge benefit for me. 



WHALENARD said:


> Try riding a gen 1 Evil Following up a steep grade at 6'2" and tell me it's technique. Of course technique compensates for the fact that you're behind the rear axle but it doesn't make it any fun or less taxing.





ocnLogan said:


> But, the effort put into NOT looping out at times, is absolutely non-trivial, even if its not huge. Like I said, sometimes I'm literally hitting the chin bar of my helmet on the stem/handlebar, as I'm actively trying to pull my chest as far forward/low to the ground as I can on some of those steeper climbs. And if the steep section is longer, that does drain you a bit (or, at least me).


Exactly! It's doable, but it's so much better to not have to sit on the saddle nose and try to kiss the stem. I think longer chainstays help on climbs too -- I feel more centered and balanced overall -- though I do agree the benefit of relatively long chainstays is more pronounced on descents and when cornering.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Le Duke said:


> So, comments questioning why people seem incapable of shifting themselves around on a bike to account for gradient turn into you wanting me to ride a bike several sizes too large.
> 
> Can you explain the relevance of your comments? These people aren’t my height, riding a bike meant for someone your height. These are people my height riding mediums, guys 5’10” riding large frames, etc.
> 
> ...


having you ride a bike too small is impossible. your already tiny. 
so flipping it around to tye opposite should bring some clarity to the ideas we are bringing forth. 

but... you dont get it and you wont till you go ride a bike like that for a while. 

you seem unwilling to be open minded about being in others situation.

im going to say lets agree to disagree.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Fuse6F said:


> having you ride a bike too small is impossible. your already tiny.
> so flipping it around to tye opposite should bring some clarity to the ideas we are bringing forth.
> 
> but... you dont get it and you wont till you go ride a bike like that for a while.
> ...


I ride a medium frame. There are plenty of XS and S frames out there.

I’ve demoed S, M and L bikes this year. None of them would change my saddle position or my ability to scoot forwards or backwards as the terrain necessitated. It’s a dynamic sport. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

Le Duke said:


> I ride a medium frame. There are plenty of XS and S frames out there.
> 
> I’ve demoed S, M and L bikes this year. None of them would change my saddle position or my ability to scoot forwards or backwards as the terrain necessitated. It’s a dynamic sport.


Are you saying that shorter stays, shorter ETT, or shorter WB would not affect your efficiency/comfort/weight bias?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

EatsDirt said:


> Are you saying that shorter stays, shorter ETT, or shorter WB would not affect your efficiency/comfort/weight bias?


For climbing? No. The position of my seat relative to the BB would be the same, as would my hands. I certainly wouldn’t scoot backwards (or forwards) because of a shorter reach or ETT.

Descending, yes. Reach would be shorter. I’d have to run a longer stem than I’d prefer. But, that would be a mental comfort sort of thing; I like my relatively modern, somewhat longer reach bike. But, again, the bars would be in the same position relative to the BB. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Le Duke said:


> I ride a medium frame. There are plenty of XS and S frames out there.
> 
> I’ve demoed S, M and L bikes this year. None of them would change my saddle position or my ability to scoot forwards or backwards as the terrain necessitated. It’s a dynamic sport.
> 
> ...


seriously. 

5'4" and riding a medium frame? that is dead center between xl and xs. so if im 6'6" then i guess xs fits a rider 4'2" then. since that is the equivalent diff in size. my xl should be equally big or too big as the xs is for the 4'2" rider.

no wonder us 6'6" and up people complain the xl doesnt fit!


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Le Duke said:


> For climbing? No. The position of my seat relative to the BB would be the same, as would my hands. I certainly wouldn’t scoot backwards (or forwards) because of a shorter reach or ETT.
> 
> Descending, yes. Reach would be shorter. I’d have to run a longer stem than I’d prefer. But, that would be a mental comfort sort of thing; I like my relatively modern, somewhat longer reach bike. But, again, the bars would be in the same position relative to the BB.
> 
> ...


. you would loose some leverage on the climbs. 
super short reach would put your hands closer to your body would it not. stability with your hands close to your hips would make maintaining your balance much harder. as would lowering them as well.


i see why you run a longer stem going down. but i think you would prefer that as well going up.


basically there is a comfort triangle that you prefer. 

we understand that whether the wheels are closer together or further apart, that triangle you like will be maintained


----------



## PhillipJ (Aug 23, 2013)

Le Duke said:


> For climbing? No. The position of my seat relative to the BB would be the same, as would my hands.


All you need to do is take one of those things (chainstay length, wheelbase, ett) to a limit to understand that you're being ridiculous.

Would you be comfortable and efficient with 400mm front center? 300mm chainstays? 12mm eTT?


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

Le Duke said:


> For climbing? No. The position of my seat relative to the BB would be the same, as would my hands. I certainly wouldn’t scoot backwards (or forwards) because of a shorter reach or ETT.
> 
> Descending, yes. Reach would be shorter. I’d have to run a longer stem than I’d prefer. But, that would be a mental comfort sort of thing; I like my relatively modern, somewhat longer reach bike. But, again, the bars would be in the same position relative to the BB.
> 
> ...


It's fine and dandy that your saddle relation to the BB would be the same (and relation to bars), but you appear to be completely ignoring how your overall weight bias effects climbing.


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

Le Duke said:


> Yep. The average MTB rider I see is seated so far to the rear of their saddle that it looks like there isn’t one. I can’t see the saddle, at all.
> 
> Then, they “need” a steep STA for the 6.436% of their ride over a 10% grade, yet still get off and walk alarmingly often.
> 
> ...


The average MTB rider and roadie seat on the saddle where the saddle puts them. There is very little margin of comfort on performance saddles that most bikes come with. The saddle does not stick out back because that's how it was designed. And if people do move back a tiny bit, its probably because the frame length is too short. So they probably do need a longer frame with steeper STA. Especially those on larger frames that tend to put the saddle close to the rear axle.

"Sitting on the nose" is something you can do for a few seconds climbing a steep obstacle, not something you can do for 10 minutes. Unless you are a witch whose daily driver is a broom, most of us are used to be supported by our sit bones, not by a stick in the soft spot.


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

Suns_PSD said:


> 5'10".
> 
> Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


Ah. Right. Then you really have no idea about this issue. I'm 9 inches taller and probably a few pounds heavier.


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

Le Duke said:


> Yep. The average MTB rider I see is seated so far to the rear of their saddle that it looks like there isn’t one. I can’t see the saddle, at all.
> 
> Then, they “need” a steep STA for the 6.436% of their ride over a 10% grade, yet still get off and walk alarmingly often.


I guess you're more awesome than the average rider then.

What if you are a dynamic rider and you can throw your weight around and you are able to shift your body position forward, but the start position for that is several inches behind where you start on your bike? All the shifting in the world will only put that rider to where you move from on your bike.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

CrozCountry said:


> The average MTB rider and roadie seat on the saddle where the saddle puts them. There is very little margin of comfort on performance saddles that most bikes come with. The saddle does not stick out back because that's how it was designed. And if people do move back a tiny bit, its probably because the frame length is too short. So they probably do need a longer frame with steeper STA. Especially those on larger frames that tend to put the saddle close to the rear axle.
> 
> "Sitting on the nose" is something you can do for a few seconds climbing a steep obstacle, not something you can do for 10 minutes. Unless you are a witch whose daily driver is a broom, most of us are used to be supported by our sit bones, not by a stick in the soft spot.


Perhaps it’s just the geometry of my chosen saddle, but I can move forward an inch from
my normal seated pedaling position and be quite comfortable for a good stretch. And, no, I’m not talking about sitting “on the rivet”. I’ll never understand how so many people can buy an $8,000+ bicycle then keep the crappy stock saddle. 

If someone is moving backwards on, say, a 2022 MY Santa Cruz, the problem likely isn’t the frame, but what they’ve put on the frame. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## attaboy (Apr 4, 2008)

ocnLogan said:


> Interesting, despite being a good 3in shorter than me, you've got nearly the same saddle height. And I thought I was relatively leggy when my buddy who is 6'2", had to drop my saddle to test ride my bike .
> 
> Personally, I can't say I've ever "actually" looped out while climbing, even with short chainstays and a slack actual STA. Usually I run out of energy, gearing, or traction first, at least when actually mountain biking.
> 
> ...


Exactly this. My prior bike was a big struggle on steep climbs to counter looping out. It was XL and it had considerably long csl. Front center was short. Sta very slack. New bike is opposite in geo and climbs far better seated and standing. 6’2” leggy with 39 inches from pedal to seat.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

TooTallUK said:


> I guess you're more awesome than the average rider then.
> 
> What if you are a dynamic rider and you can throw your weight around and you are able to shift your body position forward, but the start position for that is several inches behind where you start on your bike? All the shifting in the world will only put that rider to where you move from on your bike.


I'm talking about seated pedaling position(s).


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

I have only ever gotten on one bike and thought its too big. Of course it had 36" wheels and was built for a 7'6" rider 
If your average height then congratulations your seat stays where designed for you and should be near perfect. 

Me shopping for a bike for the last 25 years. Give me your biggest bike, hhhmmm this still feels small.

Guess I just don't know how to shift around on the seat right.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

I like that you guys are indulging Le Duke's belief that the average rider doesn't have the skills to slide forward on their saddle.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

jeremy3220 said:


> I like that you guys are indulging Le Duke's belief that the average rider doesn't have the skills to slide forward on their saddle.


A lot of people don't, apparently. Maybe it's unique to my local area.


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

Le Duke said:


> I'm talking about seated pedaling position(s).


I'm talking about shifting my weight forward on the saddle. Just from a starting position that's further back, and possibly higher up, than your own.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

TooTallUK said:


> I'm talking about shifting my weight forward on the saddle. Just from a starting position that's further back, and possibly higher up, than your own.


Sounds like a case for appropriately scaled chainstays, no?

Everyone has an optimal seated position for a given gradient. Obviously taller people move further rearward as their saddle goes further from the BB. However, they are still humans with, again, an optimal seated position, and the problem of seated too far rearward relative to the rear axle seems like it's solved, without physiological compromises, by adjusting the chainstay length for each size.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

One of the best technical climbers I know is 6’6. The guy can climb steep and tech. I have never seen him loop out, even when he was on a 26inch bike with a super slack seat angle.

when it gets steep you have to hinge at the waste. On a poorly set up bike you have to this more aggressively. If you are not doing this you will struggle regardless of height.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Le Duke said:


> Sounds like a case for appropriately scaled chainstays, no?
> 
> Everyone has an optimal seated position for a given gradient. Obviously taller people move further rearward as their saddle goes further from the BB. However, they are still humans with, again, an optimal seated position, and the problem of seated too far rearward relative to the rear axle seems like it's solved, without physiological compromises, by adjusting the chainstay length for each size.


I think it is easy to get distracted by where the seat is. What matters is where the COM is. I am curious if the COM is actually further back for a tall rider or is in the same place as a shorter rider.

I have ridden a few long chain stay bikes, generally they seriously compromise agility for stability. And my experience was they really didn’t change how a bike climbed.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Le Duke said:


> the problem of seated too far rearward relative to the rear axle seems like it's solved, without physiological compromises, by adjusting the chainstay length for each size.


It's not, the chainstays would have to be super long. It's much more effective to change the STA a few degrees.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

LMN said:


> I think it is easy to get distracted by where the seat is. What matters is where the COM is. I am curious if the COM is actually further back for a tall rider or is in the same place as a shorter rider.


It's definitely further back. The COM is already rearward, shifting the saddle back moves the hips and torso rearward. There's no way the taller rider's COM isn't further rearward. Just having a longer front center causes a rearward shift.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

jeremy3220 said:


> It's not, the chainstays would have to be super long. It's much more effective to change the STA a few degrees.


Our legs are longer. Sliding too far forward negatively effects our knee angle and reduces power.

It's got to be a compromise of longer stays and slightly shifted saddle. Really, climbing is not terrible on the new geometry and standing descending that concerns me most. Not having to put <30% of my body weight on the bars just to make a flat corner.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

LMN said:


> One of the best technical climbers I know is 6’6. The guy can climb steep and tech. I have never seen him loop out, even when he was on a 26inch bike with a super slack seat angle.
> 
> when it gets steep you have to hinge at the waste. On a poorly set up bike you have to this more aggressively. If you are not doing this you will struggle regardless of height.


Your over thinking this. Can it be done, Yes. Is it optimal, No. I could climb just about anything that was possible, but it required far too many compromises to my form. Now with a almost big enough bike and sliding forward relative to the BB it takes much less effort to clear the same stupid steep tech climbs.

Can you ride a BMX bike as your mountain bike? How does that work even if it can be done.


----------



## HEMIjer (Jul 17, 2008)

frdfandc said:


> There is no bias in fitting. It's experience. It's learning and actually doing it for a living. If fitting was so simple, why do people pay hundreds of dollars to have someone tell them and show them with empirical data, how their bike is to fit them properly?
> 
> Most people don't know how to fit their bikes outside of MTBR and other cycling forums.
> 
> ...


Good post not contradicting but from another POV an experienced fitter can also set you up and regress your comfort on the bike... not against fitters but IMO it can be oversold especially for experienced riders whop understand geometry and what works for them across a wide variety of tech and terrain. Even if you have a fitter do a great job riders still need to make small adjustments and really get their body used . I can be comfortable on a bad fit bike for maybe 3-4 hours but after that ouch...so really need lots of ride time to learn what works for you.

Certainly for unexperienced rider fitter a great starting point before strating trial and error.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

So, going back to the main point of the OP a bit more.

My riding group is like 3.5 people strong. And one of them actually stumbled onto the outside article originally linked, which, is actually really just an advertisement for RAD bike fitting (IMO). And RAD was something I had also recently discovered/was trying to validate.

And when we all measured our RAD, and calculated the sizing of our current bikes...


The smallest guy about 5'7" - 5'8" and is riding a size Medium bike that is "too large" by about 29mm.
The 6' even guy is on a Large, that he recently put on the shorter stem, and removed spacers under the stem because the calculations showed that the other adjustments he'd done before (50mm stem) made the bike slightly too large for him. 
He says he "thinks" the bike might feel a touch better to him now that its been "shrunk" a bit, but still needs to test it more

I'm next up at 6'1". I've measured my RAD like 9 times, and I get a different number each time. 
The math/measurements show that my current size L is very slightly too small (~15-25mm, depending on which RAD measurement you use).

The tallest is 6'2"... and his RAD is actually shorter than mine. But he's apparently all torso (inseams is shorter than mine) and arms (+3 ape index).

So... On average, we have the shorter guys who are riding bikes who are a touch big for them, and the larger guys look like they're going to be spot on for an L, or XL frame (just depends on which bike we're talking about). So, that meshes with what most people are reporting here.

Also, I've been looking at LOTS of bike frames lately. Even some of them over the course of a few years (comparing current rides to future potential bikes), and the statement that a Medium is now as big as a Large was previously is totally spot on as far as I can see (in terms of RAD dimensions like Stack/Reach, but explicitely NOT the ETT, which will be way shorter).

An example is the Commencal Meta AM. My buddy (the 6' even one up above) has the *2019 *model in size *Large*, with *460mm of reach/633mm stack*. The *2022 *Meta AM SX in size *medium*, is* 456mm of reach/637mm of stack*. Which means in RAD terms, the span of the frames (Hypotenuse between reach and stack, in this case both are 783mm), *is 100% identical*, as they each trade a few MM in one dimension for the same proportion in another.

So... its looking like a bunch of shorter people might legitimately be on frames that are too large for them if they are buying current/new model year stuff. But the flip side is that taller people might actually be starting to find bikes that fit them.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

ocnLogan said:


> the flip side is that taller people might actually be starting to find bikes that fit them.


This has been my experience. Each successive bike I have bought has grown with the trends and each bigger bike has been easier to ride well while simultaneously beating me up less. The ladder is very noticeable coming off of 25-30 mile backcountry rides which is what I live for. Control and fun factor have increased and I'm able to ride harder deeper into big mile days. Win/win/win. 

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

alexbn921 said:


> Your over thinking this. Can it be done, Yes. Is it optimal, No. I could climb just about anything that was possible, but it required far too many compromises to my form. Now with a almost big enough bike and sliding forward relative to the BB it takes much less effort to clear the same stupid steep tech climbs.
> 
> Can you ride a BMX bike as your mountain bike? How does that work even if it can be done.


I am not saying bike set is irrelevant. But if you are “looping out on climbs” than set up is far from the primary issue.

I am ranting a little bit about the culture of throwing equipment at every problem we have in our riding. The reality is all of us have serious flaws in our riding and the biggest gain in riding come from recognizing and working on them. Changing chainstay length, stem length, seat angle ext. will make marginal differences.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

LMN said:


> , seat angle ext. will make marginal differences.


In relation to inseam you're wrong. 
You should go watch one of those norba downhill races from the '90s and rethink your position. 

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk


----------



## Ptor (Jan 29, 2004)

alexbn921 said:


> Our legs are longer. Sliding too far forward negatively effects our knee angle and reduces power.


This. This is true even for someone of average height (5’11” in my case) or maybe for those of us with longer femurs than average. The modern geometry steep seat tube angle (>74°) prevents (for me) adopting the power position required for strong climbing efforts and the hips-back/hinged-at-the-waist position that minimizes the effort required of the shoulders/arms/hands to support the upper body. I need a setback seat post to get my saddle in the right position with the current steep seat tube angles. I guess it would be even more of a problem for tall riders — I expect having the seat in the correct spot relative to the bottom bracket for powerful pedaling while seated contributes to the perceived “looping out” problem on very steep pitches. Luckily for me, there’s still one quality dropper post with setback (9point8) that gets me where I want to be when seated, but I’m not so far back as to cause me any “loop out” issues on steep pitches. On the other hand, my 6’3” long-legged son and a couple of 6’5”+ friends have no problem crushing steep climbs on steep STA bikes with a straight seat posts — so maybe the issue of steep STA and seated pedaling isn’t a widespread problem.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Le Duke said:


> ... If someone is moving (the seat) backwards on, say, a 2022 MY Santa Cruz, the problem likely isn’t the frame, but what they’ve put on the frame.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Unless the frame is too small.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

WHALENARD said:


> In relation to inseam you're wrong.
> You should go watch one of those norba downhill races from the '90s and rethink your position.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk


You mean when mountain biking was super new and everybody was busy trying to figure out how to ride properly?

The best riders of that time would still out ride nearly all of us on their 30yr old bikes. 

But you are choosing an extreme example. I certainly not saying keep you 90s era bike and work on technique. What I am saying before you blame chainstay length take a look at your technique or better yet get someone who really knows what they are doing to take a look at your technique


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

LMN said:


> You mean when mountain biking was super new and everybody was busy trying to figure out how to ride properly?
> 
> The best riders of that time would still out ride nearly all of us on their 30yr old bikes.
> 
> But you are choosing an extreme example. I certainly not saying keep you 90s era bike and work on technique. What I am saying before you blame chainstay length take a look at your technique or better yet get someone who really knows what they are doing to take a look at your technique


FFS. You're the same guy who said you used to teach (coach) keeping weight forward on steeps on mid 90's bikes while preaching technique on these forums.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

EatsDirt said:


> FFS. You're the same guy who said you used to teach (coach) keeping weight forward on steeps on mid 90's bikes while preaching technique on these forums.


I did?

Mid-90s we were all teach get your weight as far back as possible. We were wrong.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

alexbn921 said:


> I have only ever gotten on one bike and thought its too big. Of course it had 36" wheels and was built for a 7'6" rider
> If your average height then congratulations your seat stays where designed for you and should be near perfect.
> 
> Me shopping for a bike for the last 25 years. Give me your biggest bike, hhhmmm this still feels small.
> ...


You really got to get the nub right in the old tail socket. Then when you hit a little bump/pitch in the trail it super motivates you to stay forward on the bike and keep the legs spinning.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Le Duke said:


> A lot of people don't, apparently. Maybe it's unique to my local area.


Why are you spending so much time looking at peoples butts anyway?


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Le Duke said:


> Sounds like a case for appropriately scaled chainstays, no?
> 
> Everyone has an optimal seated position for a given gradient. Obviously taller people move further rearward as their saddle goes further from the BB. However, they are still humans with, again, an optimal seated position, and the problem of seated too far rearward relative to the rear axle seems like it's solved, without physiological compromises, by adjusting the chainstay length for each size.


Look at the trek model seat tubes with the big kink. They travel backward pretty fast. Vs a seat tube brought up from the bb in a straight line. Leg length can greatly affect seated position on some frames.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Fuse6F said:


> Why are you spending so much time looking at peoples butts anyway?


I pass a lot of people. I passed the same person four times last weekend. Another group of five, three times. That's a lot of posteriors.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

alexbn921 said:


> Our legs are longer. Sliding too far forward negatively effects our knee angle and reduces power.
> 
> It's got to be a compromise of longer stays and slightly shifted saddle. Really, climbing is not terrible on the new geometry and standing descending that concerns me most. Not having to put <30% of my body weight on the bars just to make a flat corner.


I have been moving my seat forward as far as i can all season. If i do climbing trails. 750m days. Then i tip it down aggressively to match the grade and raise it slightly. This keeps me turning efficiently and improves weight balance climbing. You can feel
The bike release and become more efficient. The power stroke is balanced w gravity better. Very little pull on the bars. Mostly
Just punching straight down w the legs. 
Long cs will have the same effect creating a better balanced bike in the average. 
Note i have to revert back for flatter trails as the hand pressure is excessive.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

LMN said:


> Mid-90s we were all teach get your weight as far back as possible. We were wrong.


Not wrong, just not right for every situation.

So when I played with Lee's set up using some concrete blocks as shown in the video, I found my bikes to all fit right according to his theory, but I'm not sure that validation for his system.

How we fit a bike really depends on use, and for mountain bikers that use can vary greatly because our terrain can vary greatly.

"Looping out" on a mountain bike has more to do with technique and weight distribution than geometry, though it could also just be too steep to climb 

So has anyone noticed that all these "rules" we develop for what is "ideal" tend to change over time. Maybe rules aren't meant to be applied universally, maybe these rules should be more "rules of thumb"?

What makes me wary of Lee's system and for that matter any "system" is the lack of flexibility inherent in a rule based system and profit making that seems to accompany them. I have no issues with making money, but when someone is selling a system, they tend to be more rigid in how that system is applied.

Maybe some folks are better at fitting themselves?


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Ptor said:


> This. This is true even for someone of average height (5’11” in my case) or maybe for those of us with longer femurs than average. The modern geometry steep seat tube angle (>74°) prevents (for me) adopting the power position required for strong climbing efforts and the hips-back/hinged-at-the-waist position that minimizes the effort required of the shoulders/arms/hands to support the upper body. I need a setback seat post to get my saddle in the right position with the current steep seat tube angles. I guess it would be even more of a problem for tall riders — I expect having the seat in the correct spot relative to the bottom bracket for powerful pedaling while seated contributes to the perceived “looping out” problem on very steep pitches. Luckily for me, there’s still one quality dropper post with setback (9point8) that gets me where I want to be when seated, but I’m not so far back as to cause me any “loop out” issues on steep pitches. On the other hand, my 6’3” long-legged son and a couple of 6’5”+ friends have no problem crushing steep climbs on steep STA bikes with a straight seat posts — so maybe the issue of steep STA and seated pedaling isn’t a widespread problem.


Actually your riding is fine but its old school. 

There is climbing using you hammies and body weight from deep back in the saddle

Then there is the hips open more upright position high up on the saddle (seated just forward a bit), w shorter cranks, and the front quads adding more to your power.

One way is lifting the whole body up over everything. Bike included. With a bit of a back tire focus.

And the other way is riding in the middle of the bike having the obstacle feeling like its Half covered already and using power to lift whats left to go up over the obstacle.


I hope my description comes through.

someone else may describe it better.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

One other part to add is rear suspension setup. 

My stumpy w dvo sits deep. 30% sag. some band adjustments and 300 psi didnt fix it. I made my own flip chip raising the rear end up and also an offset bushing. This brought the bike into the efficient area of the suspension. So on a climb i optimized the suspension position and set my shock pressure best for my weight. These changes improved pedal efficiency and it woke up the rear end.

Experiment and make a little test yourselves. Try a climb w 10% more sag than normal and see how it goes.

bike suspension setup plays a big part in how the bike performs. Not just sta or reach


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

Fuse6F said:


> Not just sta


Isn't that what you effectively altered though? Maybe I misunderstood. 

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

LMN said:


> I did?
> 
> Mid-90s we were all teach get your weight as far back as possible. We were wrong.


Yes. You vehemently argued it, and clearly are still willing to. Nothing like "needing to weight the front end" riding steeps on a bike with the front hub tucked back behind your bars.

I find it really odd the you of all people seem to be disregarding a fundamental part of fit in favor of arguing technique.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

WHALENARD said:


> and rethink your position.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Fuse6F said:


> Actually your riding is fine but its old school. There is climbing using you hammies and body weight.
> 
> Then there is the hips open more upright position high up on the saddle (seated just forward a bit), w shorter cranks, and the front quads providing the power.
> 
> ...


So, producing power by using the largest and most powerful muscles in the human body is bad/“old school”, and focusing on the quads is good?

Just taking notes, in case anyone else wants to figure out how they can go slower for a given amount of perceived effort. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

Le Duke said:


> So, producing power by using the largest and most powerful muscles in the human body is bad/“old school”, and focusing on the quads is good?
> 
> Just taking notes, in case anyone else wants to figure out how they can go slower for a given amount of perceived effort.
> 
> ...


Are you saying hams are the most powerful muscle in the leg? Am I missing something here?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

EatsDirt said:


> Are you saying hams are the most powerful muscle in the leg? Am I missing something here?


Based on his posts here and elsewhere, he prefers a very upright position, which significantly reduces the ability to engage the glutes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Duke

Hey read it anyway you want.

I updated it a little bit. Remember i said others may clarify better.

i tried to address the comment posted. Which i feel confident i did.


no worries


Please explain it better

Fwiw





Blog | GeauxChiro







geauxchiro.com


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Nurse Ben said:


> Not wrong, just not right for every situation.
> 
> So when I played with Lee's set up using some concrete blocks as shown in the video, I found my bikes to all fit right according to his theory, but I'm not sure that validation for his system.
> 
> ...


I always think as mountain biking as a sport of compromise. The position I like for smashing downhills I don’t like for long days in the saddle and the position I like for smashing climbs I really don’t like for


----------



## KobayashiMaru (Apr 25, 2020)

EatsDirt said:


> Are you saying hams are the most powerful muscle in the leg? Am I missing something here?


I know the quads are stronger than the biceps femoris, and the glutes are supposed to be the big, bad boys in the equation, but when I really go after it on a ride, I always feel like my hams are working way more than my quads. Maybe I'm just hitting a wall as they're weaker than the others and they feel it sooner, but it actually feels like they're doing more work than the quads, so what does that say about fit and/or positioning, if anything?


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

EatsDirt said:


> Yes. You vehemently argued it, and clearly are still willing to. Nothing like "needing to weight the front end" riding steeps on a bike with the front hub tucked back behind your bars.
> 
> I find it really odd the you of all people seem to be disregarding a fundamental part of fit in favor of arguing technique.


Weighting that front wheel for braking traction is constant regardless of geometry. Just looks different on different geometry. But I am not sure that “how to ride a 90s bike” is really relevant to this thread or maybe I am missing something.

I am a bike fitter, so I obviously value bike fit. But I watch a lot of people ride bikes and although their fit could be improved their biggest improvements will come from technique.

No fit in the world is going to allow you to do super technical climbs sitting up right with your arms out straight.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

LMN said:


> No fit in the world is going to allow you to do super technical climbs sitting up right with your arms out straight.


How do you know? Have you ridden this one? Maybe Harley is on to something?


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

LMN said:


> Weighting that front wheel for braking traction is constant regardless of geometry. Just looks different on different geometry. But I am not sure that “how to ride a 90s bike” is really relevant to this thread or maybe I am missing something.
> 
> I am a bike fitter, so I obviously value bike fit. But I watch a lot of people ride bikes and although their fit could be improved their biggest improvements will come from technique.
> 
> No fit in the world is going to allow you to do super technical climbs sitting up right with your arms out straight.


I brought up your previous 90's geo technique comments as an example that you either aren't capable or unwilling to change perspective despite claiming to be an expert. Confirmed by your first sentence.

Technique and ability are always a factor, as if it even needs to be said.... You're welcome to bring up extreme fit examples completely unrelated to anything I've said here, but it's not lending you any credibility as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

LMN said:


> No fit in the world is going to allow you to do super technical climbs sitting up right with your arms out straight.


Was anyone arguing this?


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

EatsDirt said:


> I brought up your previous 90's geo technique comments as an example that you either aren't capable or unwilling to change perspective despite claiming to be an expert. Confirmed by your first sentence.
> 
> Technique and ability are always a factor, as if it even needs to be said.... You're welcome to bring up extreme fit examples completely unrelated to anything I've said here, but it's not lending you any credibility as far as I'm concerned.


How about this, next time you are in BC let us meet up have a half dozen beers, pull out our 90s era bikes and smash ourselves on some steep chutes trying out different techniques. It would be fun and clear up what I think is just poor communication on my part.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

LMN said:


> How about this, next time you are in BC let us meet up have a half dozen beers, pull out our 90s era bikes and smash ourselves on some steep chutes trying out different techniques. It would be fun and clear up what I think is just poor communication on my part.


Perhaps this is some type of miscommunication... assuming we are both advanced riders, you'd think our theories/experiences would align more.

Ha, yea... no chance on the 90's squirrel ride. As fun (and slightly stupid) as it might have been back then, I have ZERO interest in revisiting the personal limits of really crappy equipment.

Beers are on me though if you want to guide Squamish steeps... and a legitimate guide offer back at you if you end up in SoCal and want to ride the fun stuff the BC pros/bros come down for in the winter.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

EatsDirt said:


> Perhaps this is some type of miscommunication... assuming we are both advanced riders, you'd think our theories/experiences would align more.
> 
> Ha, yea... no chance on the 90's squirrel ride. As fun (and slightly stupid) as it might have been back then, I have ZERO interest in revisiting the personal limits of really crappy equipment.
> 
> Beers are on me though if you want to guide Squamish steeps... and a legitimate guide offer back at you if you end up in SoCal and want to ride the fun stuff the BC pros/bros come down for in the winter.


I know Squamish quite well. Did a ride, or I should say a swim there this weekend.

But the goods are in the interior. The joke is Squamish and Whistler are for tourists


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

LMN said:


> I know Squamish quite well. Did a ride, or I should say a swim there this weekend.
> 
> But the goods are in the interior. The joke is Squamish and Whistler are for tourists


Good luck ever getting there at 40kph.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

LMN said:


> The joke is Squamish and Whistler are for tourists


Well, I'm guessing I qualify there. A US tourists at that, so I'll need quality and quantity trails that are Starbucks adjacent... at a 25% discount please.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Le Duke said:


> Based on his posts here and elsewhere, he prefers a very upright position, which significantly reduces the ability to engage the glutes.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


what is the optimum angle to engage the glutes?


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

I've found that the lower my upper body is...the more I can feel my butt cheeks. Also sliding back on my saddle...I can feel like I'm using my butt.


----------



## KobayashiMaru (Apr 25, 2020)

I know a guy named Mac that modded out a regular exercise bike to create the perfect workout. He called it The Ass Pounder 4000. It has a fist that will hit you in the ass if you try to sit down when you're tired. Ass Pounder 4000: Never Stop Pounding


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

KobayashiMaru said:


> I know a guy named Mac that modded out a regular exercise bike to create the perfect workout. He called it The Ass Pounder 4000. It has a fist that will hit you in the ass if you try to sit down when you're tired. Ass Pounder 4000: Never Stop Pounding


Gotta love an IASIP reference.


----------



## afalts (Dec 7, 2011)

Jayem said:


> Good luck ever getting there at 40kph.


??


----------



## ccm (Jan 14, 2004)

^ ??? me too
my guess is that with traffic through Seattle and Vancouver, and See Them Die Highway often 0 kmph, that the average speed for the trip is 40 kmph
But I thought with the border crossing the average speed would be even lower


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

Suns_PSD said:


> Nurse Ben, I just don't agree with you. The bikes handle poorly with too short of chainstays compared to the front end length.
> 
> Riders have preferences and styles, sure. But no professional racer (in any sport) is going to intentionally choose a poor set up that pushes the front end constantly due to their 'personal tastes'.


Why do professional racers get brought up constantly with regards to bike setup/geo? I am not a professional rider and I am sure I don't ride like one so honestly I don't give a damn what they do. I have consistently found I have more fun on a shorter chainstay bike and that is good enough for me.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

93EXCivic said:


> Why do professional racers get brought up constantly with regards to bike setup/geo? I am not a professional rider and I am sure I don't ride like one so honestly I don't give a damn what they do. I have consistently found I have more fun on a shorter chainstay bike and that is good enough for me.


Hear, hear!
=sParty


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

93EXCivic said:


> Why do professional racers get brought up constantly with regards to bike setup/geo?



If we're discussing what's fastest or optimum for certain conditions it might be relevant. Obviously some nuance is warranted when using them as an example.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Fuse6F said:


> thoughts???
> 
> View attachment 1952227
> 
> ...


That middle picture looks like a sasquatch.


----------



## Skeptastic (Mar 31, 2012)

shakazulu12 said:


> I bought Lee's book a few months back when this topic was being rehashed again. I always figure I can learn something from just about anything. Sometimes the thing I learn is the opposite of what the lesson is trying to teach. I get what Lee is trying to get at with RAD and RAAD. But, as others have mentioned. At 5'11" with a 6'6" wingspan, it just didn't work out for me. But that doesn't mean I didn't pick up other tidbits of information that I found useful. I don't think there are many absolutes when it comes to bike fit and it's simply way to much of an individual thing to encompass in a single equation. That being said, I was able to look at the formula and understand better what I may or may not feel on a bike. Demo a few with different figures and get a solid understanding of what I prefer my triangle to look like. Then was able to order a bike without ever having sat on it, that feels just about perfect now that it's here. So I can't say it was a waste of 40 bucks or whatever it was.


Did you end up with a large frame instead of medium? I am 5'11" and for some reason thought I had a +0 ape index, but my wife just measured my wingspan now, and I am a +5 ape index. I typically prefer medium bikes, so maybe it has something to do with inflexibility, but this discovery definitely has me thinking that I might be a candidate for a large after all lol! Definitely need to demo before buying.


----------



## davec113 (May 31, 2006)

93EXCivic said:


> Why do professional racers get brought up constantly with regards to bike setup/geo? I am not a professional rider and I am sure I don't ride like one so honestly I don't give a damn what they do. I have consistently found I have more fun on a shorter chainstay bike and that is good enough for me.


Because they are a reference for how to do things the best way we currently know how. I'm not saying there's no room for being an individual and doing whatever floats your boat, but learning from others prevents you from reinventing the wheel. 

People confuse basics with more advanced skills, and people look at pros and only see these advanced skills. But the basics are also there and looking at pro's body positions, cornering stance, etc. can be massively helpful in mt biking because the skills aren't generally intuitive.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

davec113 said:


> Because they are a reference for how to do things the best way we currently know how. I'm not saying there's no room for being an individual and doing whatever floats your boat, but learning from others prevents you from reinventing the wheel.
> 
> People confuse basics with more advanced skills, and people look at pros and only see these advanced skills. But the basics are also there and looking at pro's body positions, cornering stance, etc. can be massively helpful in mt biking because the skills aren't generally intuitive.


But enduro racers have a much different setup vs freeriders/slopestyle riders vs expedition/adventure riders vs XC racers. There are many different ways to ride a bike and going for pure speed is not everyone's goal.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

Fuse6F said:


> honestly, if you dont have rear tire traction on a climb, dont go looking for a short cs to solve that.


I've ridden bikes with longer CS that needed some attention to keep rear wheel traction. I know enough about what's going on to make that happen, but will I buy a bike with shorter CS instead that climbs more intuitively for me? Yes 100%.

It's like super low BB's. I can ratchet and time my pedal strokes, but do I want to think about my feet all ride. Nope. I'll buy a frame with a BBH that works most of the time in my area without needing special attention.


----------



## Skeptastic (Mar 31, 2012)

As I sat here thinking about the ape index this evening, I realized that it may not be as helpful for some as we may think. 

I am a former college football player with very wide shoulders and an overall muscular build. My ape index doesn't only factor my arm length, it factors everything included in my wingspan, such as how broad my shoulders are. But my broad shoulders do not affect my reach toward the handlebars in any way. I think measuring arm length from some point around the shoulder joint makes a lot more sense, if we are to compare folks of similar height in order to devise an index that determines which of them might better fit a smaller or larger size bike. 

Any thoughts?


----------



## davec113 (May 31, 2006)

93EXCivic said:


> But enduro racers have a much different setup vs freeriders/slopestyle riders vs expedition/adventure riders vs XC racers. There are many different ways to ride a bike and going for pure speed is not everyone's goal.


The basics are all the same though, that's my point... body position, cornering technique, pumping through uneven terrain, etc. all the same


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

davec113 said:


> The basics are all the same though, that's my point... body position, cornering technique, pumping through uneven terrain, etc. all the same


But we aren't talking about technique we are talking about bike setup and geo. 

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk


----------



## shakazulu12 (Jul 14, 2015)

Skeptastic said:


> Did you end up with a large frame instead of medium? I am 5'11" and for some reason thought I had a +0 ape index, but my wife just measured my wingspan now, and I am a +5 ape index. I typically prefer medium bikes, so maybe it has something to do with inflexibility, but this discovery definitely has me thinking that I might be a candidate for a large after all lol! Definitely need to demo before buying.


Yes, large Transition Spire. But I think this is all going to come down to personal preference, and quite a bit of that is probably going to be riding style.


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

Skeptastic said:


> As I sat here thinking about the ape index this evening, I realized that it may not be as helpful for some as we may think.
> 
> ...I think measuring arm length from some point around the shoulder joint makes a lot more sense, if we are to compare folks of similar height in order to devise an index that determines which of them might better fit a smaller or larger size bike.
> 
> Any thoughts?


That's a pretty sharp observation, and does matter to many, I'm sure.

Still doesn't help me. I may only be 6'-2", but even with custom shirts (that take my shoulders into account) I need 37-1/2" sleeves. Combine that with a long torso and short legs, and my numbers are completely out of whack compared to an average person. Low saddle, shorter than average 'grip to feet' distance would indicate a short reach, but when my torso is leaned forward and my arms are in a natural position, that makes for a stupidly long reach.

I have a feeling there is an ideal 'height' for this philosophy that's short to average, like acrobats, and when you get into extremes, it just stops working so well. That's fine, it doesn't invalidate it at all, it just means certain people's body proportions can't provide optimal leverage (when standing vertically) *and* optimal balance (when seated) on a bike to perform some of the most demanding kinds of riding. They have to give up something because of their frame. It happens.

I mean, look at power lifting. My bench press is sub-optimal because of my really long arms, but my deadlift is pretty good because of those same long arms and short legs. Doesn't mean I can't get good at them, doesn't mean I won't enjoy lifting, I just won't ever be a top athlete in the sport largely because I don't have the frame for it.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

KobayashiMaru said:


> I know a guy named Mac that modded out a regular exercise bike to create the perfect workout. He called it The Ass Pounder 4000. It has a fist that will hit you in the ass if you try to sit down when you're tired. Ass Pounder 4000: Never Stop Pounding


Wait, that’s what I do to my wife and she said I was gonna get hit back.

What am I doing wrong?


----------



## Skeptastic (Mar 31, 2012)

shakazulu12 said:


> Yes, large Transition Spire. But I think this is all going to come down to personal preference, and quite a bit of that is probably going to be riding style.


Thanks for the info! And yes, it is definitely going to come down to rider preference and/or style. Sometimes a certain size of a bike just feels right. I was fortunate enough to line up a few demos in Austin and Houston in the coming weeks, so I should have a great idea of my preference, at least as far as the Switchblade is concerned. Being able to take them on the trails is a dream come true during this bike shortage madness. I will definitely report back with my findings, although they will naturally be based on personal preference.


----------



## Skeptastic (Mar 31, 2012)

schnee said:


> That's a pretty sharp observation, and does matter to many, I'm sure.
> 
> Still doesn't help me. I may only be 6'-2", but even with custom shirts (that take my shoulders into account) I need 37-1/2" sleeves. Combine that with a long torso and short legs, and my numbers are completely out of whack compared to an average person. Low saddle, shorter than average 'grip to feet' distance would indicate a short reach, but when my torso is leaned forward and my arms are in a natural position, that makes for a stupidly long reach.
> 
> ...


You make very sound points. Your height and arm length with short legs and a long torso must make it really, really difficult to find the perfect sized bike. It sounds like you need a large with XL ETT and/or reach. What do you currently ride and how are you getting on with it? Is there a bike you've loved the fit of, even if just during a demo?

I agree that at some mid-bell-curve height, limb, and torso length, there lies a human being for whom the ape index would likely make their decision to size up or down a simple process. For most of us, the right fit is gonna take some demo rides and a gut decision, followed by some fiddling with stem length, riser bar height, etc. I wish this process were more fun than it is, but it's all still worth it in the end. Even on my previous bike, which I always felt to be a bit too long when seated, I had a blast when riding it on in the world!

Your final point is super real. If born 6'8", I could complain all day that I never got a shot at being a running back, but the fact is that position better suits one with a low center of gravity, a thick frame, excellent lateral agility, and as much speed as is possible within those confines haha. Carson Palmer was never going to run the ball and Barry Sanders was never going to throw it, at least at the NFL level lol. The nice thing is that we aren't trying out for the NFL, so even with proportions that don't easily fit stock bikes, we can still modify them to fit as best as possible and have a great time out on the trails!


----------



## Calsun (May 12, 2021)

The newer bikes have very different frame geometry in many cases - depending on the manufacturer of course. It is why I have bought a new hardtail and a new FS bike and paid twice as much as I would have for a comparable used bike. Specialized appears to do the best job with their new S sizing that lets a "medium" rider go with a S2, S3, or S4 frame depending on how they like to ride and the reach they want. 

There is also more variation in upper torso length and arm length that has been largely ignored by frame builders in the past. One can put on a shorter or longer stem but this is only a partial solution.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Calsun said:


> The newer bikes have very different frame geometry in many cases - depending on the manufacturer of course. It is why I have bought a new hardtail and a new FS bike and paid twice as much as I would have for a comparable used bike. Specialized appears to do the best job with their new S sizing that lets a "medium" rider go with a S2, S3, or S4 frame depending on how they like to ride and the reach they want.
> 
> There is also more variation in upper torso length and arm length that has been largely ignored by frame builders in the past. One can put on a shorter or longer stem but this is only a partial solution.


This is all an example of why I like custom from the start. I will do the AutoCAD, and provide a blueprint with every detail spelled out, with references to Machinery's Handbook for procedural information. With prices being in the custom realm, there is no way I can justify an over the counter when a prescription is required!


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

schnee said:


> That's a pretty sharp observation, and does matter to many, I'm sure.
> 
> Still doesn't help me. I may only be 6'-2", but even with custom shirts (that take my shoulders into account) I need 37-1/2" sleeves. Combine that with a long torso and short legs, and my numbers are completely out of whack compared to an average person. Low saddle, shorter than average 'grip to feet' distance would indicate a short reach, but when my torso is leaned forward and my arms are in a natural position, that makes for a stupidly long reach.
> 
> ...


Sadly at 6'6" 260lbs. My motogp career never had a chance


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

vikb said:


> I've ridden bikes with longer CS that needed some attention to keep rear wheel traction. I know enough about what's going on to make that happen, but will I buy a bike with shorter CS instead that climbs more intuitively for me? Yes 100%.
> 
> It's like super low BB's. I can ratchet and time my pedal strokes, but do I want to think about my feet all ride. Nope. I'll buy a frame with a BBH that works most of the time in my area without needing special attention.


Long cs makes a larger more stable triangle. Find your balance point and up you go. 


as far as long cs needing attention, Thats a loaded comment. I can add to much tire pressure and affect rear traction. I can have too much rebound in my shock and affect rear traction. Body position etc.

but whats the best system to operate. Imo i will choose the bike system w a bit longer cs than one thats a bit too short.

whats too short? imo.

If you have to place weight on the bars to make your bike function in the terrain you ride.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

Fuse6F said:


> Sadly at 6'6" 260lbs. My motogp career never had a chance


Nor your chances of being a top horse jockey.

In all seriousness, I am 5’11” (real height, not inflated) and slightly torso long and find that in many cars my head is close to hitting the roof. Being 6’6” has to suck for many cars, not to mention twin beds, and coach on an airplane.


----------



## Vandals (Oct 21, 2018)

Great article! I just bought a new medium because I found the large I purchased a few years ago just felt too big on the trails for me. I road a 17 scwinn moab back before Schwinn went all to Walmart. Somewhere in the last 20 years I started moving up in frame sizes. Might have been the price or the feel. But I noticed my L Cannondale Cujo (27+) feels huge compared to my L specialized FSR (26). I wish shops would cover up the size when people do test rides. Just let them focus on the fit.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

Vandals said:


> I wish shops would cover up the size when people do test rides. Just let them focus on the fit.


That's a really good idea. People come in with preconceived notions. I'm lucky that I fall between sizes, so I don't really "know" what my size is.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

I have two fs bikes, a size 3 short GG Shed Dogg and a size large Canfield Tilt. I have them set up as close to the same as possible, same bars and grips, same distance from seat to bb, same distance bb to bar, some dustsnce bar to seatall within a couple mm.

Yet, on the Canfield I feel more stretched out.

The mist notable difference to the eye is the seat tube angle, the Canfield is way more slack. I did have to slide my seat forward a good 10mm to get a better fit.

Canfield is pretty consistent about frame sizing, I’ve got a medium N9 ordered, if it fits okay, I may be tempted to get a medium Canfield when I upgrade to a lithium 👍


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Fuse6F said:


> Long cs makes a larger more stable triangle. Find your balance point and up you go.
> 
> 
> as far as long cs needing attention, Thats a loaded comment. I can add to much tire pressure and affect rear traction. I can have too much rebound in my shock and affect rear traction. Body position etc.
> ...


Nah, a shorter rear triangle is stronger, that’s simple materials science.

Shorter rear triangles place the wheel further under the rider making it easier to transfer weight, so they tend to climb better.

A long rear triangle can contribute to stability at speed, but a long rear triangle also increase wheelbase and reduces agility.

The short and long rear triangle debate is kinda silly, not unlike fit, we all have our biases based on experience.

But it’s hard to dispute physics and material science.


----------



## PhillipJ (Aug 23, 2013)

One guy saying short rear makes climbing easier because it loads the back more. Another saying long rear makes climbing easier because it loads the front more.


Is one of you significantly taller than the other? My guess is that Fuse6F is taller than Nurse Ben.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

I’m tall (6’1”) and prefer short chainstays.

Chainstay lengh is just another dimension, not unlike bar width or suspension travel. The unwashed masses don’t know what they want and those that do know what they want are split.
If you don’t know what you want, don’t worry about it. Get a bike & ride it — you’ll be happy.

Until you get too picky.
=sParty


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

PhillipJ said:


> One guy saying short rear makes climbing easier because it loads the back more. Another saying long rear makes climbing easier because it loads the front more.
> 
> 
> Is one of you significantly taller than the other? My guess is that Fuse6F is taller than Nurse Ben.


The interesting thing would be how each rider postures and positions while pedaling. Along with how they go about laying on the power. 

My stock trials bike has 385mm CS for good reason, the front of the bike needs to be nearly "no load" for TGS.
Middlechild is 415-430mm dependent on slider adjustment. Still plenty trialsy!

Longer stays will apply more load to the front while shorter will lighten the front without consideration of 90° STA or 72° STA or rider position and posture. The CS length thing is a default value until other ingredients are added.

Have to agree with Sparty in the generalization that John Q Public has no clue on CS dimensions.


----------



## PhillipJ (Aug 23, 2013)

Sparticus said:


> Get a bike & ride it — you’ll be happy.


What's the point of discussion ending statements on a discussion forum? 

If I could go ride right now I wouldn't be on here.


----------



## fuzz_muffin (Dec 24, 2017)

Nurse Ben said:


> Nah, a shorter rear triangle is stronger, that’s simple materials science.
> ...
> But it’s hard to dispute physics and material science.


Not that I have much else to add, but that is NOT materials science.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Nurse Ben said:


> Nah, a shorter rear triangle is stronger, that’s simple materials science.
> 
> Shorter rear triangles place the wheel further under the rider making it easier to transfer weight, so they tend to climb better.
> 
> ...


When Fuse6A said: "Long cs makes a larger more stable triangle. Find your balance point and up you go." he wasn't talking about the actual physical strength of the rear triangle.
He was correctly pointing out that the entire bike is more balanced front to rear and therefore more 'stable'.
Short chainstays on long bikes are awful if you actually want to lean your bike over aggressively around turns. Effing terrible. Small/ medium sized bike riders wouldn't understand. 

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

PhillipJ said:


> One guy saying short rear makes climbing easier because it loads the back more. Another saying long rear makes climbing easier because it loads the front more.
> 
> 
> Is one of you significantly taller than the other? My guess is that Fuse6F is taller than Nurse Ben.


6’, 190#, long arms, I guess it must be skilz 🤣

Having ridden zero chainstays (muni) which have the absolute best traction of any wheeled device, rode stoopid fat bikes in the snow and ice where traction is about as limited as it gets, I absolutely know short chainstays stays hook up better.

People make up theories, like the idea that the lengths of front and rear centers must have some ratio to be balanced, seriously it’s bullshite.

But hey,what do I know, I still live with my parents, right 😆


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

Skeptastic said:


> What do you currently ride and how are you getting on with it?


Right now, a 2016 Jeffsy, which was the longest slackest bike I've owned. It's really good fun downhill, but I'm tired of not being able to stand and sprint because the bike feels like it bounces down beneath me more than it surges forward. It also wallows when it climbs steep stuff unless I have the shock locked out, making that a drag.

So, I'm waiting on a Banshee Phantom. The test ride made it feel like a much better fit for the trails around here, which are do-able on a hardtail for the most part. It'll be longer, slacker, burlier, and less travel than the Jeffsy, so I'm hoping for a 'hard tail for an old man' kinda ride. We'll see...


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Suns_PSD said:


> When Fuse6A said: "Long cs makes a larger more stable triangle. Find your balance point and up you go." he wasn't talking about the actual physical strength of the rear triangle.
> He was correctly pointing out that the entire bike is more balanced front to rear and therefore more 'stable'.
> Short chainstays on long bikes are awful if you actually want to lean your bike over aggressively around turns. Effing terrible. Small/ medium sized bike riders wouldn't understand.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


Nah, that’s all I ride, it works great, best handling bikes ever.

The point must folks forget is that riding out of your seat allows you to position your body for fore aft balance, unlike when you’re seated.

Short chainstays are great for an active riding style, but yeah, if you ride XC or like plows, then long chainstays work fine.


----------



## PhillipJ (Aug 23, 2013)

Nurse Ben said:


> 6’


So 6 inches shorter than Fuse6F. Seems unsurprising you like shorter chainstays.

Unsure how your weight or living conditions are relevant, I'll file that along with your remarks about materials science.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Nurse Ben said:


> Nah, that’s all I ride, it works great, best handling bikes ever.
> 
> The point must folks forget is that riding out of your seat allows you to position your body for fore aft balance, unlike when you’re seated.
> 
> Short chainstays are great for an active riding style, but yeah, if you ride XC or like plows, then long chainstays work fine.


I stand nearly constantly and carve quite aggressively. At the limit on a long bike the front end loses traction way before the rear end on a short chain stay bike. 

This is the reason in the timed EnduroMag race bikes test the fastest bikes were all bikes with longer chain stays compared to the front center. 

This is why many bike reviews will praise the handling of the medium version of a bike then complain about the handling on the large version of the same bike with familiar phrases like 'requires an active riding style to make work ...'

This is the reason I swapped to a long chain stay bike that otherwise was nearly identical to my previous bike and saw all my PB's fall instantly, and it felt slower doing it. Front tires lasted longer too.

You are so engrained in your position that you will argue in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Maybe someday you'll evolve your position on this. Either way, your position is wrong. 

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Nurse Ben said:


> 6’, 190#, long arms, I guess it must be skilz 🤣
> 
> Having ridden zero chainstays (muni) which have the absolute best traction of any wheeled device, rode stoopid fat bikes in the snow and ice where traction is about as limited as it gets, I absolutely know short chainstays stays hook up better.
> 
> ...


if you look at a bike as a system, was the muni faster down and up than say a modern bike like the stumpy evo?

which would you prefer to ride for 1000 miles a season over every type of terrain you could get your wheels on?

as much as a short cs loads the rear for climb traction it overloads the rear everywhere else. you should ride with heavy feet and light hands.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Suns_PSD said:


> When Fuse6A said: "Long cs makes a larger more stable triangle. Find your balance point and up you go." he wasn't talking about the actual physical strength of the rear triangle.
> He was correctly pointing out that the entire bike is more balanced front to rear and therefore more 'stable'.
> Short chainstays on long bikes are awful if you actually want to lean your bike over aggressively around turns. Effing terrible. Small/ medium sized bike riders wouldn't understand.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


thank you. i like having discussions. you can learn from others experiences.


i was also discussing the idea that cg and the two tire contact patches form a triangle. a wider base is a more stable triangle and will climb better.

the front tire doesnt have a drive mechanism. so yes it might as well not be there when it comes to traction. it doesnt propel you up the hill.

all the traction should be on the driving tire. but what about looping out?

the taller the rider the higher the cg. it gets magnified pretty quick. slope gets steeper. the cg moves behind the axle or near it, power is applied and a loop out occurs.

what to do? okay just move weight forward, lean on the bars. but that will unload the rear tire. spin out comes next.

what works to prevent the loop out is not weight forward, but weight lower in the frame, the cg moves ahead of the rear axle as the triangle becomes less tall. and this prevents the loop out. you can argue both methods do, just dont lean so far forward as to unload the rear tire, ah but you can be closer to the rear axle and yet further forward of it, on the same slope, with a shallow triangle

i have a hard time shortening my pedal stroke so that i mimic a rider with shorter legs. which would shorten my triangle and lower my cg down into the bike. try pedalling in a squat position. that is what shorter riders get to do with their equivalently shorter legs. i think my seat height is set for a 40" pedalling height. it doesnt get shorter when i stand up.


the shorter rider inherently has the cs length im seeking, as their lower cg. mimics a wider triangle.

the shorter rider will never experience this effect as they are always lower inside the bike. on a given frame as most if not all designs have a common cs length. or xxl frames arent long enough for the larger rider to make a big difference vs 4" shorter cg. in the pedal stroke length.


----------



## Skeptastic (Mar 31, 2012)

schnee said:


> Right now, a 2016 Jeffsy, which was the longest slackest bike I've owned. It's really good fun downhill, but I'm tired of not being able to stand and sprint because the bike feels like it bounces down beneath me more than it surges forward. It also wallows when it climbs steep stuff unless I have the shock locked out, making that a drag.
> 
> So, I'm waiting on a Banshee Phantom. The test ride made it feel like a much better fit for the trails around here, which are do-able on a hardtail for the most part. It'll be longer, slacker, burlier, and less travel than the Jeffsy, so I'm hoping for a 'hard tail for an old man' kinda ride. We'll see...


The leverage curve of the 2016 Jeffsy looks as progressive as most YT bikes, so I bet it handled big hits well. But yeah, not the most efficient pedaler huh? I'm always tempted by the YT bikes, but the bob when pedaling reported by many owners always gave me pause. Congrats on the new Banshee soon to arrive! I'm with you on the old man "hardtail" haha! I'm sure it's gonna be a nice ride and change-up from the longer-travel Jeffsy! You going with an XL?


----------



## Grinchy8 (Jul 6, 2021)

I’m a RAD believer. But that isn’t surprising as my body appears to be as vanilla as they come. 71 inches tall. Wingspan 72. Ape of 1 (ratio) or +1 (subtract).
My standing fist to ground (RAD) is basically the same as my pedaling inseam, 32” (813mm). My calculated reach based on height is 451mm. 

What I wanted to do was shop for frames without being able to test ride (low supply plus quarantine etc). So using published stack/reach doesn’t account for the distance up to grip center from the stem. I measured my bike, but also wanted to see if I could find a second opinion on that amount to add. I watched the joy of bike videos again and believe I heard Lee say 40mm stem assumed in the reach calculation.
Additionally, in the small vs medium video Alex put up some numbers on sizing and the hypotenuse difference on those bikes was something like 20mm, (measured to grip center). I looked up the published reach and stack for the two bikes used and backed out around 30mm as a value to add to the reach/stack hypotenuse to allow calculating my fit to grip center. This also matched well with my already fit bike at home.
So I ran a Pythagorean theorem for (813-30)^2(rad-grip adjust)=451^2(Reach)+Stack^2 and got 640 as the target stack.
Simple then to look at published reach/stack values and see which frames would be +\- or spot on for me.
Ended up on a Nimble 9 M (published at 450/638). Canfield’ chart had me middle of range for their L based on height. It’ll be interesting to see how the frame feels when it gets here.


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

Skeptastic said:


> The leverage curve of the 2016 Jeffsy looks as progressive as most YT bikes, so I bet it handled big hits well. But yeah, not the most efficient pedaler huh? I'm always tempted by the YT bikes, but the bob when pedaling reported by many owners always gave me pause. Congrats on the new Banshee soon to arrive! I'm with you on the old man "hardtail" haha! I'm sure it's gonna be a nice ride and change-up from the longer-travel Jeffsy! You going with an XL?


Yeah, the Jeffsy was amazeballs on the downhills. Poppy, playful, maneuverable, a blast. But... I started cycling with true 'climbing' riders, and I get as much out of clearing technical problems on the way up as flying on the way down.

Yeah, I'm going XL. I know Banshee recommends up to 6'-3" for the Large, but the top tube was shorter than the Jeffsy, so it felt paradoxically more cramped than the Jeffsy, even though the wheelbase is decently longer. We'll see how it works out.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Nurse Ben said:


> People make up theories, like the idea that the lengths of front and rear centers must have some ratio to be balanced, seriously it’s bullshite.


Selfawarewolf


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fuse6F said:


> thank you. i like having discussions. you can learn from others experiences.
> 
> 
> i was also discussing the idea that cg and the two tire contact patches form a triangle. a wider base is a more stable triangle and will climb better.
> ...


This is one of the advantages of using a full suspension. My Tallboy has 440mm chainstays and still has great traction. My old hardtail with 419mm chainstays had good traction but I had to fight the front end sometimes. 

Having that wider triangle base that you talked about also increases the sweet spot for body position. On the hardtail it was often a real balancing act to manage weight distribution to maintain traction, keep the front down, stay comfortable, etc.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Anyone can say whatever they want about chainstay length, fellas. Meanwhile personally I prefer shorter chainstays. I've owned lots of bikes. My 2nd mountain bike -- a 1986 Stumpjumper -- had 19.25" chainstays -- that's 489mm. Long enough for you long stay lovers? 

That bike's stays were so long that I nicknamed it "The Queen Mary." The rear wheel lost traction every time I stood up to pedal because the rear tire's contact patch was a mile behind my COG.

Whatever. In my world it's about the way the bike handles, not PRs. Used to race in my younger days but I quit racing a decade ago so I'm not pursuing PRs anymore. I'm having fun on frisky bikes. Though I'm not convinced that just because someone else set some PRs on a long chainstay bike that I would do likewise regardless. I like the way my shortish chainstay bikes (~430mm) feel, handle, climb, descend, move, fly.

Ride whatever you like. No need to denigrate others for what they prefer.
=sParty


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

Suns_PSD said:


> This is why many bike reviews will praise the handling of the medium version of a bike then complain about the handling on the large version of the same bike with familiar phrases like 'requires an active riding style to make work ...'


I'm gonna jump on that. Companies like Norco have it 100% right.

Size-dependent chainstay lengths are the next big 'global innovation' that needs to happen across all manufacturers.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Nurse Ben said:


> People make up theories, like the idea that the lengths of front and rear centers must have some ratio to be balanced, seriously it’s bullshite.
> 
> But hey,what do I know, I still live with my parents, right 😆


Some interesting insights here both ways on balance and chainstay length. Nothing about living with your parents though.









AASQ #110: Six mountain bike frame mfgs discuss proportional length chainstays


Santa Cruz, Privateer, Cotic, Nukeproof and RAAW discuss their justifications for and against running proportional length chainstays




bikerumor.com


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Suns_PSD said:


> I stand nearly constantly and carve quite aggressively. At the limit on a long bike the front end loses traction way before the rear end on a short chain stay bike.
> 
> This is the reason in the timed EnduroMag race bikes test the fastest bikes were all bikes with longer chain stays compared to the front center.
> 
> ...


I find it interesting that folks use examples from enduro racing to support their argument when the majority of the people posting to this thread are far from being enduro riders.

But yeah, you got this 😆


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Nurse Ben said:


> Nah, a shorter rear triangle is stronger, that’s simple materials science.
> 
> Shorter rear triangles place the wheel further under the rider making it easier to transfer weight, so they tend to climb better.
> 
> ...


Cotic doesn’t seem to have a hard time disputing your “science”..

From the bike rumor article I linked just above…
“Once you throw in better clearance around the chainring/tyre area, it’s easier to put a stiff structure into that critical area.

The thing I don’t agree with a lot of the time is that short chainstays are better. They’re just not. Longer chainstays mean less chance of looping out on steep climbs, and they naturally transfer the weight forward which is great for modern, long, slack bikes. Although they can need more of a “hoick” to pull the bars up for a manual, once you’re up, the balance point is wider and easier to manage… And, that’s just a couple of handling advantages.”


----------



## davec113 (May 31, 2006)

Nurse Ben said:


> I find it interesting that folks use examples from enduro racing to support their argument when the majority of the people posting to this thread are far from being enduro riders.
> 
> But yeah, you got this 😆



Keep digging!

"Enduro riding" is as close to regular mt biking as it gets. Not saying I'm some pre-level racer but I've done many BME races and it's just like any other day mt biking besides the timed dh. 

Also, there's nothing wrong with preferring short cs, many people do. It's extrapolating your experience out to others who are much taller that's the issue.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

Nurse Ben said:


> I find it interesting that folks use examples from enduro racing to support their argument when the majority of the people posting to this thread are far from being enduro riders.
> 
> But yeah, you got this 😆


I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that you are comparatively overestimating your skills, speed, etc.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

EatsDirt said:


> I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that you are comparatively overestimating your skills, speed, etc.


There isn’t some threshold of speed that has to be achieved to all of a sudden call the riding “enduro” riding.

Someone riding in the EWS is of course faster than someone riding in their local enduro series. But it doesn’t somehow make them riding “more” enduro than the average joe. But in terms of their effort, they’re both probably riding as fast as their skill set and equipment will allow.

Just like I often talk about how I was a soccer player growing up, even though I never played in the World Cup. But I sure left all of myself out on the field each game like the famous people do.

And actually, at least around here, the normal trail riding is probably closest to “enduro” racing. In the sense that we have to climb everything under our own power, and then we try to have as much fun as we can on the way down. So comparing what lots of people doing to EWS racing doesn’t seem that far off to me.

Personally I’m not currently a fan of short chainstays (I’m on a long travel 29’er with 425mm chainstays, which is about as short as they come). I struggle to keep the front weighted correctly, even with a pretty”steep” hta of 65.5 degrees.

It could be I am not a great rider. It could be weird body proportions. Probably both. But that doesn’t change the effect.

Im curious if longer chainstays help with F/R weight balance. In theory I can see how it would, so I’m hoping to get some ride time on a bike with longer stays to see if it does what I think it does to the ride characteristics of the bike.


----------



## Skeptastic (Mar 31, 2012)

schnee said:


> Yeah, the Jeffsy was amazeballs on the downhills. Poppy, playful, maneuverable, a blast. But... I started cycling with true 'climbing' riders, and I get as much out of clearing technical problems on the way up as flying on the way down.
> 
> Yeah, I'm going XL. I know Banshee recommends up to 6'-3" for the Large, but the top tube was shorter than the Jeffsy, so it felt paradoxically more cramped than the Jeffsy, even though the wheelbase is decently longer. We'll see how it works out.


I know not everyone subscribes to the rear center/front center balance, but the XL Banshee seems to have great balance for taller riders. 445 mm chainstays with that XL front center seems to be ideal. I bet you're gonna love that bike! Keep us posted!


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Nurse Ben said:


> I find it interesting that folks use examples from enduro racing to support their argument when the majority of the people posting to this thread are far from being enduro riders.
> 
> But yeah, you got this


NB, you're the one that claimed this nonsense "if you ride XC or like plows, then long chainstays work fine.".

First I don't know who would think long chain stays are appropriate for XC. Is everything opposite with you?

Secondly, I know where and how I ride. Am I as fast as the Pros? Not even close. But the terrain I ride much of the time is just as chunky or more-so than an actual Enduro race course. That's all Enduro racing is essentially, a race down your favorite AM descending trail. 

The climbing traction advantage of short chain stays, while real, isn't that big of a deal for an AM rider and is easily overcame with technique, but it's a complete non issue for an Enduro run as climbs aren't technical, steep, nor timed. The problem with short chainstays is that the same advantage they confer on the climbs (placing a disproportionate % of the system weight on the rear tire increasing traction) becomes a distinct disadvantage in the turns as the lack of weight on the front tire negatively effects front wheel traction. 

I want to try and turn this discussion more productive and friendly. Honest questions: 1) what's your CS, Reach, HTA & stem length on your current long travel bike? 2) Do you often turn/ lean your bike at your max speed to the point where both tires slip equally either on flat or loose turns? Do you notice differences in which wheel let's loose first based on how you position your body? If yes, what have you noticed specifically?

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

At 5'5 I have no idea what a bike rides like for a tall rider. Just as a tall rider has no idea what a bike rides like for me.

But I do have a long chain stay bike (440mm) and it is in my opinion the best overall bike I have ever owned. However, I find the long chain stays make it quite a bit more difficult to loft the front end. I can still manual the bike but I have to push really hard to get that front end up. It is a significant enough that some lines are difficult to hit.

I don't know if a tall rider or a better rider would have the same challenges.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

LMN said:


> At 5'5 I have no idea what a bike rides like for a tall rider. Just as a tall rider has no idea what a bike rides like for me.
> 
> But I do have a long chain stay bike (440mm) and it is in my opinion the best overall bike I have ever owned. However, I find the long chain stays make it quite a bit more difficult to loft the front end. I can still manual the bike but I have to push really hard to get that front end up. It is a significant enough that some lines are difficult to hit.
> 
> I don't know if a tall rider or a better rider would have the same challenges.


It's definitely different for a taller rider. I have no problem getting front end up on my Tallboy with 440mm chainstays. My center of mass is higher and when I shoot my hips back to manual they're are much further back than a shorter rider. There's a lot more leverage from a taller rider.


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

No it's not!


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Sparticus said:


> Anyone can say whatever they want about chainstay length, fellas. Meanwhile personally I prefer shorter chainstays. I've owned lots of bikes. My 2nd mountain bike -- a 1986 Stumpjumper -- had 19.25" chainstays -- that's 489mm. Long enough for you long stay lovers?
> 
> That bike's stays were so long that I nicknamed it "The Queen Mary." The rear wheel lost traction every time I stood up to pedal because the rear tire's contact patch was a mile behind my COG.
> 
> ...


Using a 1986 stump jumper to determine that long chain stays suck is about as useful as using a 1991 Gary Fisher Montare (393mm stays) to determine short chain stays suck. Super short chain stays are just as old-school as super long chain- stays.

Here is an interesting look at extremely long chain-stays with modern geometry…
https://www.pinkbike.com/news/bike-check-isak-leivssons-homemade-high-pivot-dh-bike.html


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

singletrackmack said:


> Using a 1986 stump jumper to determine that long chain stays suck is about as useful as using a 1991 Gary Fisher Montare (393mm stays) to determine short chain stays suck. Super short chain stays are just as old-school as super long chain- stays.
> 
> Here is an interesting look at extremely long chain-stays with modern geometry…
> https://www.pinkbike.com/news/bike-check-isak-leivssons-homemade-high-pivot-dh-bike.html


I'll admit to being long CS curious (or even hopeful).

But wow, he's running 40mm longer chainstays than his reach (510mm chainstays vs 470mm reach). His chainstays are 85mm longer than mine! Given, the front center is likely still longer than his rear center with a 63 degree HTA... but still, thats long. Cool to see someone playing around with geo ideas themselves though. I wonder if he'll do a V4 with smaller chainstays .

Anecdotally, I know Greg Minnaar ran 472mm chainstays last season. And the Commencals high pivot downhill bikes will get over 500mm chainstay lengths under compression.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Suns_PSD said:


> I want to try and turn this discussion more productive and friendly. Honest questions: 1) what's your CS, Reach, HTA & stem length on your current long travel bike? 2) Do you often turn/ lean your bike at your max speed to the point where both tires slip equally either on flat or loose turns? Do you notice differences in which wheel let's loose first based on how you position your body? If yes, what have you noticed specifically?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


1) what's your CS, Reach, HTA & stem length on your current long travel bike: Both my bikes are similar, 47omm reach, CS is 423 Shred, 425MM Tilt, stems are 32/35 mm
2) Do you often turn/ lean your bike at your max speed to the point where both tires slip equally either on flat or loose turns?: I can choose to wash one or both tires, depends on what I'm doing and where I'm riding, ie soil type and condition
3) Do you notice differences in which wheel let's loose first based on how you position your body: Yes
4) If yes, what have you noticed specifically: If I get forward I can wash out my rear wheel, if I get back I can wash out my front wheel.

For perspective, I ride more aggressively and faster than any of my mates, I ride lots of tech, and I ride mostly expert trails when given a choice. I ride in the PNW and Southwest. Favorite type of riding is Southern Utah and Southern Colorado, rocky, steps, sand stone, etc...


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Suns_PSD said:


> I want to try and turn this discussion more productive and friendly. Honest questions: 1) what's your CS, Reach, HTA & stem length on your current long travel bike? 2) Do you often turn/ lean your bike at your max speed to the point where both tires slip equally either on flat or loose turns? Do you notice differences in which wheel let's loose first based on how you position your body? If yes, what have you noticed specifically?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


I have three bikes I spend a lot of time on.

Bike 1:
Orbea Occam:
CS: 440mm, Reach 450mm, HTA 66, Stem 60mm.

Orbea Oiz:
CS: 430mm, Reach 435, HTA 69, Stem 70mm.

Orbea Rallon:
CS: 435mm, Reach 430, HTA 65.5, Stem 50mm

I am Kamloops BC, high speed turns are a huge part of our riding. All the bikes are well balanced in the turns. 

What I find is the chain stay length really affects how much trail braking I can do. With longer the chain stays it seem that I can drag that rear brake through a turn and still have a stable bike. The negative is on a longer stay bike it harder to create instability when I want it.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Nurse Ben said:


> 1) what's your CS, Reach, HTA & stem length on your current long travel bike: Both my bikes are similar, 47omm reach, CS is 423 Shred, 425MM Tilt, stems are 32/35 mm
> 2) Do you often turn/ lean your bike at your max speed to the point where both tires slip equally either on flat or loose turns?: I can choose to wash one or both tires, depends on what I'm doing and where I'm riding, ie soil type and condition
> 3) Do you notice differences in which wheel let's loose first based on how you position your body: Yes
> 4) If yes, what have you noticed specifically: If I get forward I can wash out my rear wheel, if I get back I can wash out my front wheel.
> ...


That reach to chainstay ratio would be like me running a 464mm chainstay.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

Ben and I are actually pretty similar in size, which makes the comparison interesting to me. The one caveat is I'm fairly certain that Ben is faster than I am (I've only been riding for 3 years, averaging just under a ride per week most years), and I "think" I might have longer legs (6'1" barefoot, 36.5in pedal to top of saddle measurement).

1) I'm on a bike with 475mm reach, 425mm chainstays, and 1218mm wheelbase (That means a Front Center/Rear Center ratio of 1.87 if anyone else tracks frames with this measurement). I'm also running with a nearly slammed stem, and a 50mm stem trying to get more weight over the front.
2) I often try to lean my bike at max speed, but two wheel drifting is very uncommon.
3) If I don't "very actively" weight the front end, particularly in not as steep terrain, the front definitely wants to wash out. The rear only slides when I'm pressurizing a berm (this is also where I get all my tire squirm).
4) If I'm lazy, the front washes out easily (or at least wants to). This is less of a problem the steeper the terrain gets obviously.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

LMN said:


> snip..
> What I find is the chain stay length really affects how much trail braking I can do. With longer the chain stays it seem that I can drag that rear brake through a turn and still have a stable bike. The negative is on a longer stay bike it harder to create instability when I want it.


Yup, short chainstays make it much easier to throw around the bike, which might suggest high speed instability, though I haven't noticed that problem.

As for braking, leading with the front brake is usually a good option to avoid locking up the back brake, unless you're trying to initiate a rear wheel slide.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Nurse Ben said:


> 1) what's your CS, Reach, HTA & stem length on your current long travel bike: Both my bikes are similar, 47omm reach, CS is 423 Shred, 425MM Tilt, stems are 32/35 mm
> 2) Do you often turn/ lean your bike at your max speed to the point where both tires slip equally either on flat or loose turns?: I can choose to wash one or both tires, depends on what I'm doing and where I'm riding, ie soil type and condition
> 3) Do you notice differences in which wheel let's loose first based on how you position your body: Yes
> 4) If yes, what have you noticed specifically: If I get forward I can wash out my rear wheel, if I get back I can wash out my front wheel.
> ...


I believe you when you indicate that you can shred a bike pretty hard. That said, MX taught me that lots of fast guys just ride the darn bike, not really caring if it works well or not. Maybe that describes you, maybe not. I'm not like that unfortunately. Princess and the Pea better describes me, I'm a bit ashamed to say. But I can tell what a bike/ motorcycle/ car is doing that's for certain.

What I will say is that your size L Tilt (just looked up what that was) is sized like a Medium. It's mid travel (138/ 140) and not very slack hta at 65'. The thing is that because of the short Reach, short travel & steepish hta that front end isn't nearly as far out in front of you as say my S5 SJ with a 498mm reach, 160mm travel & currently 63.5' hta. So undoubtedly you'd experience less front end traction issues than a more modern fit bike would at that same short CS length. In fact at 6'1" (think that's what you said) your a pretty big guy on that bike, and as such naturally have a lot of weight over that front end as it's so close to you, particularly combined with those short stems.

My L Foxy 29 & L Spur have nearly identical geo. Same CS length, Spur has 10 mm less Reach, Foxy was 1 degree slacker, & of course the Foxy has 33% more front wheel travel, etc.. Yet the Foxy lacks front wheel traction to a very significant degree whereas the Spur only occasionally has this issue. The reason the Spur doesn't have the same front traction issue is cause the front end is just not nearly as long once you add in these small but cumulative changes. I still think the size L Spur should have size specific Chainstays and would be a better bike at around 440mm CS on the Large. Because long enough doesn't provide any disadvantages at all, it's all upside. Promise you that less than a 1/4" of CS length isn't going to make your bike hard to manuever all of the sudden!


----------



## PhillipJ (Aug 23, 2013)

Nurse Ben said:


> 470 mm reach, CS is 423 Shred, 425MM Tilt, stems are 32/35 mm


So your GG has 423mm chain stays and 470mm reach. That's on the shorter side for sure but not crazy. However if I wanted one I'd be on a frame with ~510mm reach and the same 423mm chainstays. Even with the moderately steep seat angle I'd be over the back axle when pedaling. 


Maybe it DOES have something to do with rider size and not so much to do with rider skilz.


----------



## Bacon Fat (Mar 11, 2016)

I think it's funny when people argue over what is the best geo. There is no one best geo. Everyone wants something different for their style of riding and the trails they ride. I have a Large bike with a 430 reach, 442 CS and a 72* HA, 1134 WB. It rips on my twisty, tight singletrack were you are carving thru the trees. It doesn't do well on fast DH trails, but then again it is a rigid SS, so its not what it is designed for.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Suns_PSD said:


> snip...
> 
> Promise you that less than a 1/4" of CS length isn't going to make your bike hard to maneuver all of the sudden!


No, of course 1/4" isn't going to make a huge difference, but as the length gets incrementally longer there will be a noticeable change. The longest CS I've ridden recently is 435mm, and I can tell the difference between that rear end and the read end on my current bikes, just as I could tell the difference between a 415mm CS and my current bikes.

It's all horses for courses, but my range of "acceptable" chainstay length is 425-435mm on FS bikes and 415-425mm on a hardtail.

I once had a bike with a 450mm chainstay and it was a pig to maneuver, the only thing I can say about riding a bike like that is you best moving really fast if you plan to make sudden changes of direction.

There are extremes in every discipline, it's more what works for you may not work for others, but it's worth assessing our assumptions.

A buddy of mine is a SS endurance racer, he likes really long bikes. I talked him into getting a GG Pistola, he's maybe an inch taller than me, so I suggested a Sz 3 (large) frame, he rode it a week and insisted he needed a Sz 4 (XL) frame, so I helped him swap frames. Now, six months later, after riding in Moab, GJ, Cortez, he's thinking the longer frame is holding him back from riding more aggressively in tight tech 

I had a great ride yesterday on my Tilt, I credit the addition of a 160mm Mezzer for being more in control and having more stability as I careened down a gnarly rook strewn trail for a 3.5k descent over 6 miles. It feels a touch "choppery", but it also rides really well like that


----------



## C619V (Mar 8, 2021)

Bacon Fat said:


> I think it's funny when people argue over what is the best geo. There is no one best geo. Everyone wants something different for their style of riding and the trails they ride. I have a Large bike with a 430 reach, 442 CS and a 72* HA, 1134 WB. It rips on my twisty, tight singletrack were you are carving thru the trees. It doesn't do well on fast DH trails, but then again it is a rigid SS, so its not what it is designed for.


You almost described my 2008 Trek 6000 

I’ve made changes over the years to it, 1x, rigid fork, hydraulic brakes, pavement princess now…but that bike rips; it’s like that perfect pair of jeans or shoes that just fits right.

Then my Ibis Ripley AF, enjoy this bike A LOT! But even with all the adjustments to fit, still doesn’t hit that spot like my old Trek does.

Years on one and months on the other I guess 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Trail braking through a turn with your front brake is a great way to get a mouth full of dirt.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

Nurse Ben said:


> There are extremes in every discipline, it's more what works for you may not work for others, but it's worth assessing our assumptions.


Very true, and not just our body types/proportions, but also our skills and background honestly.

I have a buddy who is a good 2-3in taller than I am. We ride bikes that are almost exactly the same size (reach, wheelbase, HTA, etc, etc). He describes his bike as a "monster truck" that can plow anything. Yet I describe mine as being a bit twitchy.

Whats different?

He grew up riding street/Vert on BMX bikes (he qualified for the X games when he was 15yrs old). I grew up trail riding dirt bikes (Honda XR's mostly), mostly in the AZ mountains and deserts. So for him 29in wheels + a 66 degree HTA feels super chopper mode, and way more stable than the BMX bikes he grew up riding. While the same numbers for me feel steep and "twitchy".

*or, at least thats what I think they feel like?

Also, hoping to get more rides in on my Mezzer that I just installed. I made a tiny pressure adjustment last ride, and noticed the difference. Excited to get it more dialed soon .


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

Nurse Ben said:


> There are extremes in every discipline, it's more what works for you may not work for others, but it's worth assessing our assumptions.


Worth maybe say... reassessing you calling BS on scaling CS length or implying short CS is for superior bike handlers?




LMN said:


> Trail braking through a turn with your front brake is a great way to get a mouth full of dirt.


So true.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

LMN said:


> Trail braking through a turn with your front brake is a great way to get a mouth full of dirt.


Or tuck the front end

Remember. Trail braking helps to correct your line. But it also loads the front tire


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

There are some riders that used to ride bmx or something like that. They like small tight bikes that are very responsove/unstable.

those riders wont appreciate a bike that rides well on its own as they want to do the riding for the bike.

but those riders should at least recognize they have a style and not complain about the others that might think riding a bmx bike is just 100% away from wht they want a bike to be for them.

i like my bike alot. But i know its limitations. I want comfort and comfort performance. As in easy to ride everywhere. Id lengthen the cs stack and reach. Slacken the hta a little then ride it forever.

Want. 700 stack. 500 reach 66.5hta 450-460cs. 150/160mm travel


----------



## Bacon Fat (Mar 11, 2016)

Fuse6F said:


> There are some riders that used to ride bmx or something like that. They like small tight bikes that are very responsove/unstable.
> 
> those riders wont appreciate a bike that rides well on its own as they want to do the riding for the bike.
> 
> ...


Kinda goes both ways.

Also, some people like both style of bikes for different trails and different riding experiences.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Bacon Fat said:


> Kinda goes both ways.
> 
> Also, some people like both style of bikes for different trails and different riding experiences.


Well of course you can like what you want. But i dont want to hear a bmx rider tell me my seat is too high. And vice a versa

recognize your style/category and then preface your opinions


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

My last bike that was balanced and I could slide was a 2007 blur XC carbon. 422CSL, 69.5hta, 460ish reach and a 90mm stem. It was one of the longest bikes at the time.
97 Super V with 450ish CSL and 420 reach with a 170mm stem.
Ripmo with 492 reach, and 435csl 60mm stem
Now on a kenevo with 520 reach, 454csl and 45mm stem. Still feels small.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

schnee said:


> That's a pretty sharp observation, and does matter to many, I'm sure.
> 
> Still doesn't help me. I may only be 6'-2", but even with custom shirts (that take my shoulders into account) I need 37-1/2" sleeves. Combine that with a long torso and short legs, and my numbers are completely out of whack compared to an average person. Low saddle, shorter than average 'grip to feet' distance would indicate a short reach, but when my torso is leaned forward and my arms are in a natural position, that makes for a stupidly long reach.
> 
> ...



I'm in the same boat but I'm shorter. I've ridden bikes for my size for 5'6". For years. For the first time I can have a flat back and be centered in the bike with a reach of 450mm which is too long going by Lee's and most standards. I now can be loose on the bike turn well and re-center after jumps and drops easily. Shorter bikes had me too far back.q


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

I'll take a short CS over long any day. I ride the fork with chin over stem anyway. 420-430 depending on bike lenth is my sweet spot and I've gotten along with shorter but never longer. I don't know if my preference would change if I was taller.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Cerberus75 said:


> I'll take a short CS over long any day. I ride the fork with chin over stem anyway. 420-430 depending on bike lenth is my sweet spot and I've gotten along with shorter but never longer. I don't know if my preference would change if I was taller.


I'm taller than you, by 7-8", and still prefer the same stay length. Even if I get to be told that my preference is wrong.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

dysfunction said:


> I'm taller than you, by 7-8", and still prefer the same stay length. Even if I get to be told that my preference is wrong.


I'd probably be the same. I prefer quicker maneuverability and traction on tech climbs.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

Fuse6F said:


> Find your balance point and up you go.


I find that ^^^ easier to do with shorter CS. Weight nicely on top of the rear wheel. Tons of traction and zero issues with the front coming up. I've had bikes with long CS as well as bikes with sliding CS to experiment with and shorter CS definitely works better for me. If you like long CS great. YMMV.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

vikb said:


> I find that ^^^ easier to do with shorter CS. Weight nicely on top of the rear wheel. Tons of traction and zero issues with the front coming up. I've had bikes with long CS as well as bikes with sliding CS to experiment with and shorter CS definitely works better for me. If you like long CS great. YMMV.


Okay. But are you 6'6" tall

my fuse had a shorter cs and slack sta. Seat climbs a disaster. Standing was easy to wheelie anywhere under power.
At my size 430 cs 490 reach is the same ratio as 403 460.

or 430/520 is 380/460

i wish people could see how things might seem for a bigger rider.

I feel like those who disagree are saying that 403mm cs on a 460mm reach bike are too long and should be shorter to improve bike climbing and overall performance. When in fact most bikes are around 437 to 445 on most frame sizes.

my experience at 437 cs and 490 reach are that cs should be longer for best overall bike performance

I see the diff between a 6'6" to 6'1" rider of 5" to be the same as 6'1" to 5'8".
That 5" of height is quite a bit actually. Imo


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Sounds like the need for long CS starts around 6’6”.

Personally I’m 6’1” and prefer short CS.

Not that it matters. If you like long CS, then buy a bike with long CS. If you prefer short CS, then buy a bike with short CS. It simples. 
=sPsrty


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

Sparticus said:


> Sounds like the need for long CS starts around 6’6”.


Nah, don't fall for selection bias of the people who opt in to participate in this thread.

I've seen issues with 'too-short chainstays for the new long bikes' in reviews being brought up several times lately, and the riders were by no means tall.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

There is balance point Standing and how steep actual STA Seated effected by CS length. Also how you ride. If you're behind the bars a lot you need longer CS if you're flat back chin over stem Standing you can get away with shorter CS and enjoy the benefits of them. If the actual STA is too steep and you have a lot of sestpost exposed you'll be closer to the rear axel and front wheel gets to light on steep climbs.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fuse6F said:


> Okay. But are you 6'6" tall
> 
> my fuse had a shorter cs and slack sta. Seat climbs a disaster. Standing was easy to wheelie anywhere under power.
> At my size 430 cs 490 reach is the same ratio as 403 460.
> ...


Yeah, we keep using the term long and short to describe chainstay length like they're absolutes. I don't like big shoes, I like shoes that fit regardless of whatever size that is.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

I'm confused now. I thought the length should increase with rider height. Now it's supposed to reduce?

What's this tell me? It's preference.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

dysfunction said:


> I'm confused now. I thought the length should increase with rider height. Now it's supposed to reduce?
> 
> What's this tell me? It's preference.


Generally it should. I don't think anyone here running 500mm+ reach wants 420mm stays.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Generally it should what?

I agree, it should get longer.. which is why I find it interesting that there's claims of finding balance easier with a short chain stay when you're 2m being BECAUSE of the height. Not riding style. Nothing more  

Personally, I'd be fine with 500/430.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

jeremy3220 said:


> Generally it should. I don't think anyone here running 500mm+ reach wants 420mm stays.


How many full suspension 29ers have chain-stays in that 420mm range? The modern industry standard seems to be 430-440 range.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

LMN said:


> How many full suspension 29ers have chain-stays in that 420mm range? The modern industry standard seems to be 430-440 range.


Not many. Is there anyone here running 500mm+ reach who prefers chainstays under 435mm?


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

deleted


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

jeremy3220 said:


> Not many. Is there anyone here running 500mm+ reach who prefers chainstays under 435mm?


Me. I’m on an XL Canfield Lithium (500mm reach, 430mm stays.)
I like it.
Tho I can’t honestly say I prefer it.
If I don’t have a say, 440mm stay bike with identical proportions everywhere else, how can I compare?
And I don’t.
Have a 440mm stay bike with identical proportions everywhere else.
Meanwhile I’m happy riding my Lithium.
Ignorance is bliss?
=sParty


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

jeremy3220 said:


> Not many. Is there anyone here running 500mm+ reach who prefers chainstays under 435mm?


496mm, 420mm, 27.5 wheels, FS.

also:

488mm,420mm, 27.5 wheels. HT.

And

475mm, 420mm, 27.5/26, Fat bike.

I really think the argument about these minor biases is pointless, the conflict infers that other person knows that rider's preferences, terrain, style, dimensions, goals, etc. Bikes come in all sorts of configurations so pretty much someone can find/build whatever floats their boat.

The big fat part of the bell curve has a regular dimensions rider and a bike that isn't too long, nor too short and, these days, on big wheels. That's great. A little impersonal but great. But in a world where we customize basically every little detail on our bikes, I just can't see the purpose behind a crusade for any particular geo in absolute terms.

Sparticus wrote he likes his bike frisky. That landed with me too - small wheels, short rear and some other geo and kinematics that I selected accentuate that characteristic. I like to play on the rear wheel - I find it fun. Does that mean my bike has less grounded and stable feel than someone's who selected for those traits? Yup. And that's ok too. 

Long way of saying: you do you.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Sparticus said:


> Me. I’m on an XL Canfield Lithium (500mm reach, 430mm stays.)
> I like it.
> Tho I can’t honestly say I prefer it.
> If I don’t have a say, 440mm stay bike with identical proportions everywhere else, how can I compare?
> ...


Yeah I guess not many have the luxury of being able to experience the ability to adjust their chainstay length in isolation. Both my bikes have 10mm chainstay flip chips which has been really eye opening.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Carl Mega said:


> Sparticus wrote he likes his bike frisky. That landed with me too


‘Spose we can start a groundswell to replace “poppy” with “frisky?” 
=sParty


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Sparticus said:


> ‘Spose we can start a groundswell to replace “poppy” with “frisky?”
> =sParty


That's good. No one can tell me what 'poppy' actually is, and my brain still tries to make it 'poopy'.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

dysfunction said:


> That's good. No one can tell me what 'poppy' actually is, and my brain still tries to make it 'poopy'.


Oh man, you're going to put us down another rabbit hole. Poopy indeed.

There was a fairly well written article I read where it did a useful comparison of bike handling traits - if I can remember/find that I'll post it up.

Anyway - the crux of that article here was contrasting how stable a bike tracked vs. how likely it would respond (destabilize) to inputs. In short, a bike that would track and maintain stability in light of rider inputs and terrain changes - tended to be fast. It went about its business more or less uninterrupted. A bike that reacted to terrain and was sensitive to rider inputs tended to be agile. Subtle inputs made significant changes to how it tracked and its inherent stability.

I think that helps describe the more nebulous "poppy" term in a relative sense.

For me, it's more about how much I can unweight the bike given the same input. Unweighting and 'destabilizing' a bike with less effort initiates the sense of agility. Shorter bikes like DJ, pump, slopestyle also have a high degree of maneuverability after you unweighted. I tend to associate this feeling with poppy. Sometimes poopy.

Visually I conceptualize a triangle - tho in this one, the emphasis is having the point is on the ground (not the base). Your butt and hands are the other two points. So how easily can you reach that balance pt to move the triangle from flat base to the point on the ground is how I mentally visualize poppy (like from riding in attack position to manual).


----------



## OldSchoolMBer (May 25, 2013)

Sparticus said:


> If you like long CS, then buy a bike with long CS. If you prefer short CS, then buy a bike with short CS. II's simple


Personal preference? That's ridiculous! Clearly there's only one right answer


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

My bike is 450 reach with 430 CS. 430mm is the longest I personally have liked. The bike feels very balanced, but doesn't need too much input to maneuver. ( I'm also very comfortable with driving a Lotus Elise or Mazda Miata at high speeds) I also liked the previous gen year 153 Process with 450 reach and 425 CS. I almost bought it but Canfield announced that they were going to be producing more bikes and I prefer they're platform.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

Cerberus75 said:


> My bike is 450 reach with 430 CS. 430mm is the longest I personally have liked. The bike feels very balanced, but doesn't need too much input to maneuver. ( I'm also very comfortable with driving a Lotus Elise or Mazda Miata at high speeds) I also liked the previous gen year 153 Process with 450 reach and 425 CS. I almost bought it but Canfield announced that they were going to be producing more bikes and I prefer they're platform.


Thats the generation of Process 153 that I have. So it sounds like you were on a medium with the 450mm reach. Which makes sense. That bike has a FC/RC ratio of *1.79* in that size.

I've got a giant spreadsheet of bikes where I compare all sorts of nerdy numbers like that. And in size L, and XL, there are exactly *two *bikes that I've checked (out of 26) that have that same FC/RC ratio. One is the Polygon Sisku N9 in size Large, with a reach of 457mm and CS of 435mm. The other is the current Rocky Mountain Altitude in size large, in the long chainstay position with 474mm of reach, and 448mm chainstays. So while I can't say much about how the Kona was for you in relation to other medium frames, I can say that weight distribution you enjoyed on it, isn't something that I can even find in size L, or XL bikes (all I've checked have been 1.82 or higher. Most in the 1.88-1.92 range)

I've been on the size L Process 153 with the same chainstays, but 475mm reach for three years now (FC/RC ratio of 1.86). And I'm conflicted. On one hand, I'm kind of wishing I'd gone XL for some more reach (I feel slightly cramped, even with a 50mm stem), and on the other I'm kind of happy that I didn't end up with 510mm reach and 425mm chainstays (FC/RC ratio = 1.96), which I'd guess would feel even more unbalanced.

That said, its horses for courses. There is no accounting for preference. So its nice to have more options.

I really like the trend of more adjustability in the chainstay length personally. A fair number of bikes are coming with flipchips (Kona Process X, new GT Force, Specialized Stumpjumper Evo, Raaw Madonna, etc), or swappable dropouts (Banshee, Nicolai). And I'd love to see that trend continue.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

ocnLogan said:


> Thats the generation of Process 153 that I have. So it sounds like you were on a medium with the 450mm reach. Which makes sense. That bike has a FC/RC ratio of *1.79* in that size.
> 
> I've got a giant spreadsheet of bikes where I compare all sorts of nerdy numbers like that. And in size L, and XL, there are exactly *two *bikes that I've checked (out of 26) that have that same FC/RC ratio. One is the Polygon Sisku N9 in size Large, with a reach of 457mm and CS of 435mm. The other is the current Rocky Mountain Altitude in size large, in the long chainstay position with 474mm of reach, and 448mm chainstays. So while I can't say much about how the Kona was for you in relation to other medium frames, I can say that weight distribution you enjoyed on it, isn't something that I can even find in size L, or XL bikes (all I've checked have been 1.82 or higher. Most in the 1.88-1.92 range)
> 
> ...


Yeah it was a medium. I'm glad that most Mediums fit well these days. The Norco and Forbidden were close to this. Other bikes I had tried had 435 and 440CS if I remember correctly. Those I didn't jive well with. They were great at straits. But turns and drops felt off. There's a lot of preference and what you want from a bike. I wish more bikes had adjustments in the CS. Some people want short or to fit a ratio. But that gets messed up with different sizes.
My previous bikes was 440 reach with 414 CS it had flex I didn't like. But otherwise was a fun bike. More fun with an Angel set and longer fork. So the perfect ratio doesn't apply to me. Everyone that rode it with a more behind the bars posture hated it. I'm more on the bars and loved it.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

Cerberus75 said:


> Yeah it was a medium. I'm glad that most Mediums fit well these days. The Norco and Forbidden were close to this. Other bikes I had tried had 435 and 440CS if I remember correctly. Those I didn't jive well with. They were great at straits. But turns and drops felt off. There's a lot of preference and what you want from a bike. I wish more bikes had adjustments in the CS. Some people want short or to fit a ratio. But that gets messed up with different sizes.
> Want an idea


Yeah, all that makes sense.

And, I'm not like focusing on the ratio tons. I've just found that metric to be an interesting way to compare frames that I'm considering. Especially useful for the bikes that I don't have a chance to sit on, and see how they might feel/ride based on that.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

ocnLogan said:


> Thats the generation of Process 153 that I have. So it sounds like you were on a medium with the 450mm reach. Which makes sense. That bike has a FC/RC ratio of *1.79* in that size.


Could you explain to me what exactly you are calculating? Cause 450/ 425 = 1.06, not 1.79.

Thanks.

Edited: When I was trying to piece together what geo was consistently fast with good reviews from people I trusted, I was mostly doing a CS/ WB calculation and as I recall that allowed me to home in on a range that consistently seemed to work well. I also felt that WB takes in to several other factors such as travel/ hta/ stack/ etc. that all seem to me relavent to this equation.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

Suns_PSD said:


> Could you explain to me what exactly you are calculating? Cause 450/ 425 = 1.06, not 1.79.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Edited: When I was trying to piece together what geo was consistently fast with good reviews from people I trusted, I was mostly doing a CS/ WB calculation and as I recall that allowed me to home in on a range that consistently seemed to work well. I also felt that WB takes in to several other factors such as travel/ hta/ stack/ etc. that all seem to me relavent to this equation.


Yeah, I can see how that can be confusing. Sorry about that. 

front center is wheelbase - chainstay.

Its related to head tube angle, fork travel and reach. A bike with a super slack head tube angle, long reach, and long travel fork (like a transition spire) will have a huge front center measurement.

So for your bike its (1189mm wheelbase - 425mm chainstay)/ 425mm chainstay = 1.7976

So I guess I should have rounded up to 1.8.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

My bike is a '21 SJ Evo S5 in slack, high. Just used your calculation and came up with an 1.89 ratio and I love the bike, and am much faster on it primarily due to better front wheel traction.

Your way of calculating just doesn't predict, for me, which bike is going to ride balanced. Not that I have a better way.

For instance the example bike you thought I owned you used above, would suggest better balance as the FC is not as long compared to the CS (ratio is closer to 1:1), but in reality 425mm bikes work well only for a small minority of riders (and all 3 of them seem to have found this thread).

Is CS length measured exactly from the center of the BB? Truly don't know.

Then you have the issues of how this balance changes significantly as the bike's move through their travel. The FC is getting shorter, and how much is directly related to travel and hta. Then the CS length, well these are all over the place. Some get shorter like all the single pivots, some get longer then shorter (my SJEVO), then some just get a LOT longer like the Dreadnaught.

Of course we stand a lot but not all turns are standing turns, so now effective STA comes in to the equation.

Bikes are at once so simple but ultimately, really complicated when ridden for perforamance.

Pole bikes claims that all sizes should have long chainstays, and I sort of want to believe them. Maybe it's not as much about ratios as we make it out to be, but instead just that longer CSs are better for MTBing, always. I dunno.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

Suns_PSD said:


> My bike is a '21 SJ Evo S5 in slack, high. Just used your calculation and came up with an 1.89 ratio and I love the bike, and am much faster on it primarily due to better front wheel traction.
> 
> Your way of calculating just doesn't predict, for me, which bike is going to ride balanced. Not that I have a better way.
> 
> ...


Yeah, as expected, you can't really summarize a bikes entirety in terms of its behavior/ride characteristics, in just a single number. I was just trying to find some way of objectively comparing bikes with different reach/wheelbase/chainstay lengths/travel amounts to each other, to get a rough idea of "how actively" each bike would have to be ridden.

Here's a snippet of the spreadsheet I've been using. Primarily I'm comparing on Span (Hypotenuse between reach and stack), and the Front center/Rear center ratio I've been talking about. Its not perfect, but its been an interesting way to compare different bikes.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Fuse6F said:


> Okay. But are you 6'6" tall
> 
> my fuse had a shorter cs and slack sta. Seat climbs a disaster. Standing was easy to wheelie anywhere under power.
> At my size 430 cs 490 reach is the same ratio as 403 460.
> ...


My son is your size, he also likes short chainstays.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Nurse Ben said:


> My son is your size, he also likes short chainstays.


whats he riding?
did he ride a lot of bmx?


----------



## Alias530 (Apr 1, 2013)

At 6'6", the 2XL Santa Cruz MTB and 64cm Specialized road bikes are the first bikes I've ever had that feel like I'm not a gorilla riding a football.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Fuse6F said:


> whats he riding?
> did he ride a lot of bmx?


He rode single speed bikes until we started riding muni when he was in middle school, he's rocking a Kona Wozo with 29+ wheels until he graduates college next month, then who knows what he'll buy


----------



## Blathma (May 13, 2020)

I'm done with being folded over whilst riding. Everybody is slightly different in body ratios so I'm not sure how there's ever going to be a way to calc what fits without just custom fitting it. 
I'm 6'4" but the majority of my height is in the old legs (34" inseam), sucks for reach and my ape index is zero. Always ended up folded over to far, too much weight on the bars and reduced lung capacity.
Recently picked up an XL krampus. Sunrise bars and a ritchey adjustable stem, tilted all the way up, grips sit 5" higher then the seat...ahhhh comfort. You'd think I'd be sitting upright.. Nope.


----------



## bikesdirect (Nov 7, 2006)

Many customers like bikes that a “too big” for them; which means they are not too big for them
Sizing is very personal

some customers like frames that a “too small” for them, which means they are not too small for them
Until they cause a mechanical issue by putting their seat post too far up 

there is no perfect fit formula and worrying too much about exactness of fit, to me, is a buzz kill


----------



## HuffyMan (Oct 19, 2005)

My wife and I measured our RADs today. We used a broom stick handle, shoes on, feel pedal widths apart, full straight/head up, hands pulled downward like we're holding a bar at the top of a deadlift. Interestingly, each of our RADs is 2" longer than our bikes.

I'm 6'4 and ride a XL 2017 Fuel EX
My bike's RAD is 87.6cm
My RAD measured is 92.7cm
My RAD by the chart is 86.3

She's 5'10 and rides a Large X-Caliber with a 10cm shorter than stock stem.
Her bike's RAD is 83.2
Her's measured RAD is 88.3cm
Her RAD by chart is 81.9

So in both cases our "chart" RAD is pretty close to our bikes, but both of our measured RADs were long. Both of our bikes are in between the two values. If I had to guess, I'd say my bike is sightly small/short. I'd like the handlebars a little higher (they're about an inch below my seat) and maybe a little more reach. My bars are 750mm and I think I'd like them a little wider. I might try some 780s. My wife's bike looks good, but I think her bars are maybe a little wide at 750mm.


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

HuffyMan said:


> My wife and I measured our RADs today. We used a broom stick handle, shoes on, feel pedal widths apart, full straight/head up, hands pulled downward like we're holding a bar at the top of a deadlift. Interestingly, each of our RADs is 2" longer than our bikes.
> 
> I'm 6'4 and ride a XL 2017 Fuel EX
> My bike's RAD is 87.6cm
> ...


If you can find some picnic tables or something, maybe try the on-bike test where you stand with your pedals resting on the tables and rotate your bike up so your bars up to where it's like your broomstick measurement technique. This tends to rule out measurement issues.


----------

