# Lee McCormack's Perfect Bike Setup



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/lee-mccormacks-guide-to-perfect-bike-set-up.html

I read this over on PB and of course measured my bikes and my RAD is about 40 to 50mm more than Lee's basic formula. Obviously Lee thinks longer front centres are not great. I'm not about to go back to a smaller sized frame since I had them for decades and prefer more RAD than they deliver.

Is your RAD over, under, or spot on Lee's recommendation? Any thoughts on his bike fit theory?


----------



## Just J (Feb 14, 2005)

I read this last night and measured my RAD on my new Waltworks. It was pretty much spot on. My Switchblade was 50mm too RAD and my Les 20mm too RAD. 

There’s no such thing as too RAD in my book but I’m happy my new custom frame is bang on! 

Thinking about buying Lee’s Dialled book as I’m very interested in making bikes works the best they can for me and in bike fits in general.


----------



## Pritchett (May 18, 2005)

Front Center and RAD are not at all related, don’t lump them together in any way.

Also, I think he loses some people on how to actually measure the distance. Bottom bracket to grips, parrellell to an invisible center plane isn’t the easiest measurement to get right.

Lee’s complete method includes a bunch of body measurements, which are also easy to get wrong.

It can all add up to unnecessary confusion.

My favorite implementation of a RAD check is to drag a couple picnic tables around so you are able to set your bike up with a pedal on each tabletop. The bike is free to pivot around the bottom bracket... the. Stand on the pedals and “row” the bike toward your hips as you stand up straight. (I’m sure this was an inspiration for the riprow...)

Lee’s RAD and RAAD dimensions make a lot of sense when combined with proper images of how a person looks when using full range of motion on a bike, compared to a person at the top of a deadlift style motion (shoulders packed, bar across thighs)

Your hand position with the bike rowed into you, should look and feel like you’ve just locked out at the top of a deadlift. If the bike feels short or long in this position, you MAY find benefit in playing with longer or shorter RAD dimensions.

Pinkbike commenters were quick to point out the angle of the RAD and it’s importance. Lee hits on this with RAAD, and it sounds like he’ll be coming to his own defense with a better description soon that includes this.

I like Lee’s stuff a lot. I’ve been riding off-road for almost 20 years and have been a certified instructor for the last four. Lee’s methods are slightly different from what you’ll find from a typical instructor.
His unique focus on row and anti-row movements seem to have influenced his observations on fit and fitness ala riprow.

I think it’s great to have someone putting new words to old problems relating to both technique and fit.

And Lee is probably correct that SOME people are riding bikes too long for them. I frequently see 5’8” people lamenting over whether they should be on a Large or XL frame... the answer is probably Medium - unless you’re just along for the ride and don’t wish to have any influence over what that mysterious contraption below you is doing.


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

I did not measure my bikes to find where I fit with Lee's numbers. I usually come to the conclusion that most of these fit formulas work as a neutral starting point, but not as hard fast laws. Hell, I still think saddle height and KOPS work as a good starting point for a novice rider. In Travis's example, if he corrects to Lee's formula, will he need to slam his saddle back most of 2" to get back to his preferred riding posture, and what will that do to alter his weight distribution on the bike?


----------



## sgltrak (Feb 19, 2005)

I just measured my 3 main bikes in my garage and all three have about 4-5cm too much RAD for me if I use the simple calculation in Lee's article.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Chris Porter has a similar method. I would imagine those who are coming in too long for Lee's method will be very close to Chris's ideal measurements. Chris uses a larger multiplier for a longer bike, shocking, I know. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

The measurement process seems to be overly complicated, honestly. Especially if you dive into the full calculations of "ideal" RAD that make fewer assumptions.

But when measuring things out, my bike (which feels pretty good to me) has about 2cm longer RAD for me than Lee's calculation in the article. That said, I recently made a handlebar change (a little more rise than I used to have) and have felt like dropping it down a touch would feel better. Also worth noting, I have longer arms than avg for my height, so slightly longer RAD than the simple calculation supplies is probably also a good thing.


----------



## Just J (Feb 14, 2005)

It should also be noted that Lenz Sports use Lee's method when fitting their bikes up for customers.

http://lenzsport.com/bicycle-fit/


----------



## almazing (Jul 26, 2017)

I go strictly by ETT and reach as far as bike fit goes. 590-620 ETT and 420-460 reach. I know those numbers will fit me comfortably both seated and in the attack position. Angles don’t matter as much especially since specific categories of bike have their specified ranges. Angles depend on the bike I’m looking for. Not really convinced that steep actual seat angles make climbing better or easier to be honest. I have a Slash with a real slack seat angle and an SB100 with a steeper seat angle and climbing sucks with both of them. Yes I hate climbing. All climbing sucks but is a necessary evil.


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

While I know Lee is very popular, I don’t think his fitting system fits everyone. 

For me, it caused me to be too cramped, putting too much stress on my hips and midback. It also made my bike feel too twitchy for me (shorter stem, narrower bars).

I ended up sizing up frames when I figured out a lot of my fit problems were due to riding something too cramped and small for me. 

I do like his row/anti-row mechanics, and think there is some validity in that. But his fit? Not so much.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

stripes said:


> While I know Lee is very popular, I don't think his fitting system fits everyone.
> 
> For me, it caused me to be too cramped, putting too much stress on my hips and midback. It also made my bike feel too twitchy for me (shorter stem, narrower bars).
> 
> ...


That's similar to what I told him on Pinkbike. He may put you in a position for max biomechancial leverage but that does not necessarily mean it is the best position. Whether it's what you experienced or if the bike is designed in a way that does not require maximum leverage. For example, a longer, slacker, more stretched out bike is going to require much less core and upper body strength to resist going over the bars versus its inverse.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

Are we measuring middle of grip/end of handlebar to middle of bb?


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

tuckerjt07 said:


> That's similar to what I told him on Pinkbike. He may put you in a position for max biomechancial leverage but that does not necessarily mean it is the best position. Whether it's what you experienced or if the bike is designed in a way that does not require maximum leverage. For example, a longer, slacker, more stretched out bike is going to require much less core and upper body strength to resist going over the bars versus its inverse.


For years I was sizing down after training with Lee, and starting this year, I'm now on long/low/slack bikes (except the DJ), and I'm feeling much more confident. Thank you for explaining why 

It's good to see I'm not alone. Lee and I definitely do not see eye to eye at all on fit, mainly because I think he tries to shove everyone (and every bike) into his way. He's good at teaching people the basic riding skills - but Lee gets so caught up in fit he forgets to teach you about riding.

Which was the whole reason I was taking lessons from him for years, but stopped a couple years ago because all he cares about is forcing you into his fit (personal experience YMMV). And that was killing my confidence instead of improving it.

And this fit doesn't work for everyone: people have mobility issues (myself) who aren't going to give up riding, people are built differently, and not all bikes fit into his measurements nicely.

When I was riding closer to his fit, the bike felt too squirrelly and I've had quite a few crashes because I was never comfortable on it. I also went through a significant amount of stems and handlebars before finding what fit for me (which is exactly what I comfortable with in the first place).

It's a shame. He could really help people enjoy riding more and work on helping with confidence, but his whole bike fit is just the opposite for me.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

WHALENARD said:


> Are we measuring middle of grip/end of handlebar to middle of bb?


I measured from the center of my crank spindle to the center of my bar at the stem. This is my 140mm medium trail bike with 430mm reach

I got about 779mm with a 50mm stem. I'm 5'8"...just shy of 174cm.

I just measured my XC bike and got 800mm with a 66mm...its got a 414mm reach.

Lol...I think I measured wrong.

-----------------------

Measured the Evil I built up in March.

I went and measured my "RAD" on both my bikes.

Using LLB's formula...I got ~774mm for my RAD.

I'm 5'8" (173cm) 145lbs. 30in inseam long-ish torso.

Evil Following Medium, ~810mm RAD

Syntace Flatforce 55mm and an Enve M6 7.5mm rise and 9 deg sweep trimmed to 760mm. One 2mm spacer under the stem.

608 Stack and 419 reach.

Banshee Spitfire Medium, ~810mm RAD (kinda surprised that both bikes were the same)

Thomson X4 40mm and an Enve RSR 23mm rise and 9 degree sweep trimmed to 760mm. No spacers under the stem with a Cane Creek Slamset.

596 stack and 430mm reach.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

I read and shared it with a few, found it quite interesting, found it even more interesting when I measured my 3 very different bikes _(2 set for actual trail riding, 1 for commuting_) and found the 2 set for trail were exactly the same, while the one set for commuting was 1cm longer. 
My measurements were quite a bit over his calculators recs, roughly 70mm for the trail bikes, 80mm for the commuter, but if I show anyone a pic of me on the bikes, they say they actually look maybe a tad small and I have brought my riding position back a whole lot over the years as I've compensated for aging, injuries/flexibility and riding style/terrain.

The setups on the bikes are quite varied, 1 bike has the stem slammed and a 9 degree backsweep bar and is a 130/140 FS, the other has 35mm of spacers below the stem and a 16 degree backsweep bar (just installed week before) and rigid, both bars are 780mm wide, these are the trail bikes.

You're "sposed" to measure to the center of the outside of the bar, as bar sweep does come into play in this equation.



WHALENARD said:


> Are we measuring middle of grip/end of handlebar to middle of bb?


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

The RAD recommended for me is about 740. Every single bike I own has a rad of 810 to 830. I am not sure it is actually possible to achieve that RAD on any of my bikes.

I am curious as to where he got his recommended fit numbers from. I do not think there is a single professional who is running a bike anywhere near those dimensions.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

It sounds to me that he came up with this fit method through experience.


----------



## Just J (Feb 14, 2005)

I bought the ebook this morning and read it my my garage with my new Waltworks in front of me. I am within a few millimetres on all of Lee's recommendations which is good to know, pretty interesting too for me at least. I even noted what Lee says about bar and saddle position, his recommendation is to have the bar slightly lower than the saddle which is something I adopted for the first time on this bike. I made comment the other day about it feeling weird but something I would get used to. Exactly what Lee says on the subject.

I have had numerous bike fits over the years, I know what works for me I guess too, so all my bike builds generally start with a few key dimensions and I go from there. Lee air's on the side of a traditional bike fit I think, but he's actually made it easier to follow and quantify so that people can work out what should work for them too. 

I suppose it makes sense that I am where I should be. I had lengthy discussions with Walt and other's when we were building my frame, I wanted to go long because everyone was banging on about it like it was the be all and end all, but Walt reigned me in and suggested a length that would be about the limit of what my dimensions should be at. He was right, I'm getting benefits I can feel but I'm not stretched out or hindered in any way.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

I read those fit suggestions and I found them to be pretty asinine and inches too short. 
However I bet it's in the ballpark for my wife. 

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Travis Bickle said:


> It sounds to me that he came up with this fit method through experience.


That and through applying RipRow learnings. I think it has validity but ignores the effects of geometry in chasing maximum leverage.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## voghan (Aug 18, 2014)

So my RAD number is 818 and my bike is 860. I can't imagine how crunch up I would be if my bike was at my RAD number. I'd probably need to lower by stem and shorten my bars. Two things that I'm not likely to do. I tried running a lower stem and felt too my like I would go OTB on steep spots. I run a 760 bar and like the ride feel with that bar. I read through the PinkBike comments and that was entertaining.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

Interesting. I'm exact with my RAD# at 800 and 800 on both my single speed hardtail and full suspension. Both frames are also custom to my numbers. It reminds me of my math sometimes. I have the correct answer but I can't tell you how I got there.


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

Suns_PSD said:


> I read those fit suggestions and I found them to be pretty asinine and inches too short.
> However I bet it's in the ballpark for my wife.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk


Interesting. I'm female and I found them to be too short for me.

I think there are several other factors at play that this doesn't include like ape factor and body proportions.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

RS VR6 said:


> Lol...I think I measured wrong.


You're supposed to measure to the midpint between your grips.

I spent a month studying Lee's school and spent about two hours on the phone with him to write this: https://www.cyclinghacks.com/mountain-bike-skills-coaching/

Good stuff indeed. I've been saying that the long setups on many bikes is weird for a long time. My experience is that you can set up a bike that is stable and comfortable by making it long and tall. You know, like a beach cruiser. IME, long-reach bikes allowed for lazy, unskilled riding. A bike that fits the way a LLB fit does demands and empowers you to take control of the bike rather than just hanging on for dear life.

This is where the rest of Lee's work comes in: riding technique and strength training.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

voghan said:


> So my RAD number is 818 and my bike is 860. I can't imagine how crunch up I would be if my bike was at my RAD number. I'd probably need to lower by stem and shorten my bars.


RAD has nothing to do with handlebar width. It is the hypotenuse of the horizontal and vertical distance from the center of your BB to your hands. Measure from the middle of your cranks to the midpoint between your grips. Because most handlebars had upsweep, backsweep, and rise, this spot is probably behind the center of your handlebar.

I thought my bike would be way "too long" but I ended going from 70 to 50 mm and using a wider bar to get my bike to fit by Lee's RAD measurement and it's been great since this summer.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

mack_turtle said:


> You're supposed to measure to the midpint between your grips.


So I measured from the center of my crank arm at the BB to the center of the grip and got ~779 on the trail bike and ~800 on the XC bike. Still the same as my original measurement. I guess I can try a 50 from a 66mm stem on my XC bike.

My "RAD" is 773.

It seems like most bike fitters fit you sitting down. Lee's method is in the standing position?


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

His RAD setup is for those who ONLY ride up and down, not for those who enjoy riding a wide variety of terrain and trails, from XC to DH, he says so. There's no way I could or would want to ride my bike setup to fit _*his*_ idea of what is right and that seems to be a quite widely held thought on these forums, which is strange considering how many buy bikes and only basically do the up/down thing :skep:

Of course it does, if you increase or decrease bar width, then the measurement will do accordingly, fairly simple math - if you change the length of one side of a triangle......



mack_turtle said:


> *RAD has nothing to do with handlebar width.* It is the hypotenuse of the horizontal and vertical distance from the center of your BB to your hands. Measure from the middle of your cranks to the midpoint between your grips. Because most handlebars had upsweep, backsweep, and rise, this spot is probably behind the center of your handlebar.
> 
> I thought my bike would be way "too long" but I ended going from 70 to 50 mm and using a wider bar to get my bike to fit by Lee's RAD measurement and it's been great since this summer.


----------



## voghan (Aug 18, 2014)

mack_turtle said:


> RAD has nothing to do with handlebar width. It is the hypotenuse of the horizontal and vertical distance from the center of your BB to your hands. Measure from the middle of your cranks to the midpoint between your grips. Because most handlebars had upsweep, backsweep, and rise, this spot is probably behind the center of your handlebar.
> 
> I thought my bike would be way "too long" but I ended going from 70 to 50 mm and using a wider bar to get my bike to fit by Lee's RAD measurement and it's been great since this summer.


Did you remove spacers below your stem? It seems to me a lower bar height should shorten your RAD number. What size bar are you using?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

mack_turtle said:


> . Measure from the middle of your cranks to the midpoint between your grips. Because most handlebars had upsweep, backsweep, and rise, this spot is probably behind the center of your handlebar.


If you wanted to pin it down, a straight edge or a string drawn between the end of the grips will give you the measuring point in that space.

The whole discussion begs the question of how this would translate to a drop bar bike with 3 different hand positions. I probably spend more time on the hoods than the drops or flats....just measure to the preffered possition I mostly ride on the hoods), or is there a point between the 3 that averages them out?


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

RS VR6 said:


> So I measured from the center of my crank arm at the BB to the center of the grip and got ~779 on the trail bike and ~800 on the XC bike. Still the same as my original measurement. I guess I can try a 50 from a 66mm stem on my XC bike.
> 
> My "RAD" is 773.
> 
> It seems like most bike fitters fit you sitting down. Lee's method is in the standing position?


That's correct. His fit is basically what would be optimal for you on the riprow: being able to hip hinge and deadlift within a certain range. Which is great for when you're going over technical terrain, or going down it. And a lot of it applies to pump tracks, dirt jumps, and slope style. So for my DJ, yeah, this fit works. For trail riding, I spend a lot more time seated (I can't do standing pedaling for hours on end without a break) that his fit feels really cramped to me.


----------



## Thustlewhumber (Nov 25, 2011)

I'm a little old school probably in thinking that ETT (from the seat to the stem) is the best measurement. I went from a large Stumpjumper with a reach of 442mm to a large Patrol with a reach of 475. But since Transition also steepened the seat angle, the ETT is actually about 7mm shorter on the Patrol (611 vs 618mm). I haven't measured, but I suspect the RAD is way shorter on the Stumpy than on the Patrol... even though they fit the same.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

Thustlewhumber said:


> I'm a little old school probably in thinking that ETT (from the seat to the stem) is the best measurement. I went from a large Stumpjumper with a reach of 442mm to a large Patrol with a reach of 475. But since Transition also steepened the seat angle, the ETT is actually about 7mm shorter on the Patrol (611 vs 618mm). I haven't measured, but I suspect the RAD is way shorter on the Stumpy than on the Patrol... even though they fit the same.


I'm old school too. Just give me. 24" TT and I'll get to where I'm going.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

LyNx said:


> His RAD setup is for those who ONLY ride up and down, not for those who enjoy riding a wide variety of terrain and trails, from XC to DH, he says so. There's no way I could or would want to ride my bike setup to fit _*his*_ idea of what is right and that seems to be a quite widely held thought on these forums, which is strange considering how many buy bikes and only basically do the up/down thing :skep:
> 
> Of course it does, if you increase or decrease bar width, then the measurement will do accordingly, fairly simple math - if you change the length of one side of a triangle......


I never realized how many people only climb on fire roads until I started reading some of the regional forums. Similarly, I didn't understand how many people do the same laps on the same trail system over and over again on the same day. Their riding and the type of terrain they encounter never changes.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gasp4Air (Jun 5, 2009)

The quest to determine ideal bike set-up using formulas is an attempt to make the complex and subjective into something simple and measurable. There are so many factors. To name a few:

Joint-to-joint lengths - cripes, how many would that be?'
Weight distribution
Distribution of strength among muscle groups
Neural factors, such as balance, movement sensation, etc
Types of forces encountered for the kind of riding one does
Positions of the stars

His criteria are height and gender. That's it.

Then also, there are myriad ways to set up a bike to reach the same RAD. Are they all equally beneficial?

From the post: "_As your bike RAD gets closer to ideal for you, your bike will start to feel better. When you get to the last 10mm, then the last 5mm, then to perfect, something clicks. Your bike just feels right._"

Ultimately, in his own words, it boils down to what feels right.

P.S. RAD on my own two oft tweaked bikes (Salsa Pony Rustler (MTB) and Salsa Fargo (Gravel) were both right about 95 cm - well above the "ideal" RAD. I guess, I'm one of these: "_Most riders don't know any bette_r".

There are simpler ways to get to a starting point. Then, adjust to your liking.


----------



## Impetus (Aug 10, 2014)

mack_turtle said:


> You're supposed to measure to the midpint between your grips.
> 
> I spent a month studying Lee's school and spent about two hours on the phone with him to write this: https://www.cyclinghacks.com/mountain-bike-skills-coaching/
> 
> ...


Am I understanding this right?
Measuring the distance from center of bb to the imaginary (or literal) line strung between the grips?

If I am, that seems to miss a crucial aspect of bar width as it pertains to weight bias and steering input. 
I really like the idea of just measuring the distance from bb spindle to bar end as a function of 'area'. 
for extreme illustration: if I mounted an 800 mm broomstick to my stem, vs a 600mm one, (to exclude the rise/sweep) the bike will feel very different on the trail.

Having just snuck a 10mm spacer under my stem and really enjoying the positive change, I'm curious enough about my RAD to go see what it is. I want to make sure I'm using the correct points.


----------



## geraldooka (Jul 3, 2012)

Travis Bickle said:


> https://www.pinkbike.com/news/lee-mccormacks-guide-to-perfect-bike-set-up.html
> 
> I read this over on PB and of course measured my bikes and my RAD is about 40 to 50mm more than Lee's basic formula. Obviously Lee thinks longer front centres are not great. I'm not about to go back to a smaller sized frame since I had them for decades and prefer more RAD than they deliver.
> 
> Is your RAD over, under, or spot on Lee's recommendation? Any thoughts on his bike fit theory?


Well over the supposedly optimal "RAD". Damn and I was having so much fun!... 

I'm guessing its not obvious but to suggest that there is a formula one could use to determine the one optimal setup for a bike is pretty ridiculous.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Lee discussed handlebar width in a previous article. RAD measurement assumes you're riding a modern bike with a reasonablely short stem and with a rational handlebar width for your proportions, not "hotdog" bars with the grips crammed next to the stem.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

mack_turtle said:


> Lee discussed handlebar width in a previous article. RAD measurement assumes you're riding a modern bike with a reasonablely short stem and with a rational handlebar width for your proportions, not "hotdog" bars with the grips crammed next to the stem.


His handlebar width in that article is also way off. No way can I run ~840mm bars, can't remember the exact number but it was obscenely large. I understand what he is trying to do and academically it makes sense. In practice I think it is a big miss though due to geometry differences changing the leverage needs of the rider.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

MOJO K said:


> The whole discussion begs the question of how this would translate to a drop bar bike with 3 different hand positions.


I asked Lee about that. RAD applies to modern mountain bikes with flat bars. He's had some luck applying it to CX bikes but that's more nuanced so he makes no claims about drop bar bikes. He's used the same approach to fit some CX racers but cannot apply anything like a general theory to it... yet.


----------



## geraldooka (Jul 3, 2012)

Yup, then throw in the other important factors like:

Terrain
Riding style
Preferences

Even if his formulas are based on a thousand use cases of individuals (which apparently it is) AND he separated and analyzed each of these other extenuating factors (which he didn't) it still would not be possible to determine the perfect fit for any one individual based on this formula. Because one's bike happen's to fall into the range of what is considered acceptable by this formula and you happen to enjoy riding said bike does not suddenly make it "correct".


----------



## Impetus (Aug 10, 2014)

Interestingly, this actually came out really close. 
I did my best to measure my bike and got 78.5 cm. 

I’m 5’9” (176cm), so my RAD is something like 786mm

Given that I *just* bought a new fork (same A2C) but added 10mm more of spacer under the stem and found I climb and descend faster and with more confidence, it seems like this works for me, on a singlespeed.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

geraldooka said:


> Yup, then throw in the other important factors like:
> 
> Terrain
> Riding style
> ...


Agreed. I also noticed, if you see Lee on his bike in pics or videos it appears to fit smaller than racers (enduro & DH) fit on their bikes. It doesn't look too small for a trail bike but he does seem to have a narrower hip angle than you see on racers. Anyone else notice this?


----------



## scatterbrained (Mar 11, 2008)

Out of curiosity I measured my bike from the crank spindle to the virtual point between the grips. His recommendation (based on the article) would see me at 761mm, whereas I was actually almost 100mm longer. Instead of 76cm my RAD is closer to 86cm. I can't imagine moving my bars down and back 10cm.


----------



## Chad M (Nov 15, 2018)

I measured up my Sawyer and was very surprised to see the RAD exactly where Lee predicted. I did no math in my set up, totally instinctual but I'm happy see someone else agrees with my preference, lol.


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

scatterbrained said:


> Out of curiosity I measured my bike from the crank spindle to the virtual point between the grips. His recommendation (based on the article) would see me at 761mm, whereas I was actually almost 100mm longer. Instead of 76cm my RAD is closer to 86cm. I can't imagine moving my bars down and back 10cm.


He has a lot of his students turn their handlebars upside down (especially if they have a rise) and/or trim them, and slam the stem to the head tube to get them in the correct RAD.


----------



## sbd (Sep 23, 2011)

Both my bike are way longer than the recommended RAD and I can't imagine them being shorter. Not my cup of tea. 

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk


----------



## LaXCarp (Jul 19, 2008)

There is another bike fit "guru" Chris Porter I believe is his name. He uses a multiplier of about 5, or half of your height, and has overall recommendations longer than what Lee suggests. Not saying one way is right or wrong but making the point that this is far from consensus within bike fitting experts, so lets not take it as gospel. FYI I come in 65mm longer than Lee's suggested RAD. My previous frame would have been closer to my "ideal". That bike was more playful (also 26"), this bike is more stable....all depends how you want your bike to behave.


----------



## LarryFahn (Jul 19, 2005)

After 20 years of working pt in 2 shops I can tell you that every BODY is different.

What works for him, won't work for me. Or you, or her...

Here's something to think about--
My 6" travel (17") frame has a reach of 420mm

My HT has a 150mm fork and a reach of 435mm (15mm longer).

I put a 60mm stem on the 6" dual suspension and a 45mm stem on the HT. This should make the bikes feel similar (sag and st angel taken into consideration before buying the components and setting my stem height).

Yet the HT feels like I'm reaching about an inch farther!

The kicker? The RAD is the same!

Why do you think they feel so different? Because the angle of the rad is different. That's why.

Edit: FWIW, I'm fine with the way the bike feels since they're 2 completely different rides. 


His RAD equation is just what HE feels is perfect for where he rides and how he rides.

Ttyl, Fahn


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

While it would not completely make up for the "inch" longer feeling, don't forget you're sagging the fork on the HT about 25-40mm, which is going to effectively lengthen your reach as the back does not sag, then you most likely run a bit more sag in the rear of the FS vs front, which then shortens the effective reach, so I'm guessing that's what you're feeling.

You just can't setup a HT and FS the same way, need to do adjustments for how they are effected once you're on board, try raising the bar on the HT 10-15mm and see if that feeling doesn't go away or at least lessen.



LarryFahn said:


> After 20 years of working pt in 2 shops I can tell you that every BODY is different.What works for him, won't work for me. Or you, or her...
> 
> Here's something to think about--
> My 6" travel (17") frame has a reach of 420mm
> ...


----------



## LarryFahn (Jul 19, 2005)

LyNx said:


> While it would not completely make up for the "inch" longer feeling, don't forget you're sagging the fork on the HT about 25-40mm, which is going to effectively lengthen your reach as the back does not sag. The you most likely run a bit more sag in the rear of the FS, which then shoterns the effective reach, so I'm guessing that's what you're feeling.
> 
> You just can't setup a HT and FS the same way, need to do adjustments for how they are effected once you're on board, try raising the bar on the HT 10-15mm and see if that feeling doesn't go away or at least lessen.


"sag and st angel taken into consideration before buying the components and setting my stem height".


----------



## nauc (Sep 9, 2009)

ride what feels good to you. who cares what others do. everyones bodies are different. some people are more flexible or stronger or have injuries etc


----------



## movingmountain (Jun 6, 2004)

I took one of Lees classes last year. Did some work on the ripmo, pretty interesting Class was good. He said my bike was too big for me with his measurements..his sizing it’s not for me I’ve tried a smaller bike. He also thought I should be on narrower bars with more sweep, tried out his recommendation I didn’t like them. He said I should also be on shorter cranks. Which I switched too, which I did like better. His classes are good. Maybe not so much his bike fit measurements. There were three guys in our class not of our bikes fit his RAD


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

movingmountain said:


> I took one of Lees classes last year. Did some work on the ripmo, pretty interesting Class was good. He said my bike was too big for me with his measurements..his sizing it's not for me I've tried a smaller bike. He also thought I should be on narrower bars with more sweep, tried out his recommendation I didn't like them. He said I should also be on shorter cranks.


You sure he wasn't trying to abduct you into the circus?


----------



## Schulze (Feb 21, 2007)

Arm angle and center of gravity are not accounted for. I don't see how this fit system could be relevant.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

This all sounded interesting so I measured:

Height=75"=1905mm --> x .447 = RAD = 851mm (33.5")
Bike = 32.5-32.75 (that's as close as I can measure) or 825-832mm. I think my hand position can vary by more than that just due to the size and width of my grips.

I ride a 19" frame, which is the smallest I can ride. It is set up with a relatively high bottom bracket and a slammed 90mm stem with flat bars (and a 400mm seat post).
I recently tried to buy a 21", but they were out. The head tube would have been 5mm taller. The ETT would have been 50mm longer, but I had a 40mm stem to maintain the same reach.

Either way, going longer, esp. a full inch, would not work for me.

I think I could see the value of riding a larger frame, but I think the front end would ride lighter - for better or worse.

-F


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Fleas said:


> This all sounded interesting so I measured:
> 
> Height=75"=1905mm --> x .447 = RAD = 851mm (33.5")
> Bike = 32.5-32.75 (that's as close as I can measure) or 825-832mm. I think my hand position can vary by more than that just due to the size and width of my grips.
> ...


I would think it's going to make the front heavier since your entire mass will be shifted forwards.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I would think it's going to make the front heavier since your entire mass will be shifted forwards.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I think not...

The chainstays are equal, so my saddle position relative to the rear axle is the same. The front (reach/ETT) is longer (so the wheelbase is longer), but my hands are not farther forward due to the 50mm-shorter stem. The farther the front wheel goes out, the less weight will be on it.
The biggest attraction for me going to the next size is to get the latest model which is lighter and a tad flexier, and has a more dropper-friendly seat tube. I think they knocked a degree off the HA as well (which lengthens the WB even a tad bit more).

I'll have to check my fatbike. I'm guessing it's shorter still. Although it is taller, so it might be a wash.

-F


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Fleas said:


> I think not...
> 
> The chainstays are equal, so my saddle position relative to the rear axle is the same. The front (reach/ETT) is longer (so the wheelbase is longer), but my hands are not farther forward due to the 50mm-shorter stem. The farther the front wheel goes out, the less weight will be on it.
> The biggest attraction for me going to the next size is to get the latest model which is lighter and a tad flexier, and has a more dropper-friendly seat tube. I think they knocked a degree off the HA as well (which lengthens the WB even a tad bit more).
> ...


The idea that putting the grips in the same spot makes everything equal is a bit of a misnomer. It does and it doesn't. One way it doesn't is your body's relationship to the head tube of the bike. On a shorter stem bike you will have more mass centered over the bike but also be able to add more weight to the front when needed because of this.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Actually, I do believe you have that backwards - with a bike with longer stem=shorter Reach, you will be able to weight the front easier as the actual HT will be closer to you and the weight you're putting on the bars will be further forward relative to the HT, all other things being equal.



tuckerjt07 said:


> The idea that putting the grips in the same spot makes everything equal is a bit of a misnomer. It does and it doesn't. One way it doesn't is your body's relationship to the head tube of the bike. On a shorter stem bike you will have more mass centered over the bike but also be able to add more weight to the front when needed because of this.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

LyNx said:


> Actually, I do believe you have that backwards - with a bike with longer stem=shorter Reach, you will be able to weight the front easier as the actual HT will be closer to you and the weight you're putting on the bars will be further forward relative to the HT, all other things being equal.


I didn't say easier. I said apply more weight. With the ability to transfer your weight back more quickly you can recover more easily and will be less prone to an endo all things equal.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## cunningstunts (Sep 1, 2011)

put my Patrol on the saw horses and did the stand up method he shows. my RAAD in this case was spot on. i didn't use the math formula. at 6 5 long and lanky, i don't expect to fit into any models, nor would i ride a bar over 780 in length, etc. i appreciate his attempt and think there's some wisdom in the ideas, especially for bmx but trail riding, body shape, strength and fitness, trail riding vs max DH stability, way too many factors for anything precise.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

Adding a couple data points.

Measured RAD

- FS trail bike = 900mm
- Rigid bikepacking/gravel MTB = 930mm

RAD calculated by height = 794mm.

Both fit well. I wouldn't mind sizing up on the rigid bike, but I'd use a shorter stem and less spacers to keep the bars in the same place and maintain about the same RAD measurement.


----------



## AlpineMTBTraining (Apr 26, 2009)

I've never been a fan of cookie cutter equations. I set up a bike with the RAD his equation gave me for my height. I went and did the on bike test with my bike on 2 sawhorses. Too short. I couldn't even get the handle bar up to my hips. 

I had an idea of how to measure it myself. I grabbed a spare handlebar. With my riding shoes on I stood up tall like at the top of a deadlift and measured from the ground to the handlebar. I got 30mm longer than my calculated RAD. Adjusted my bike to fit that number and the on bike test was perfect. I bought a new frame this year based on my measured RAD and I am very comfortable on it. Probably the most comfortable I have every been on a bike


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

chris705 said:


> I've never been a fan of cookie cutter equations. I set up a bike with the RAD his equation gave me for my height. I went and did the on bike test with my bike on 2 sawhorses. Too short. I couldn't even get the handle bar up to my hips.
> 
> I had an idea of how to measure it myself. I grabbed a spare handlebar. With my riding shoes on I stood up tall like at the top of a deadlift and measured from the ground to the handlebar. I got 30mm longer than my calculated RAD. Adjusted my bike to fit that number and the on bike test was perfect. I bought a new frame this year based on my measured RAD and I am very comfortable on it. Probably the most comfortable I have every been on a bike


The RAD in the PB article is a bit simplistic. Lee has a much more sophisticated calculator on his online school, but you have to pay for that one. The on-bike check has worked super well for me. I suck at measuring. I've been riding with a dialed RAD for 2-3 years now, and I suspect I will be sizing all my bikes like this from here on out.


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

a bike with 20" reach and a 15" stack will have the same RAD as a bike with a 15" reach and a 20" stack. how is this even relevant?


----------



## AlpineMTBTraining (Apr 26, 2009)

s0ckeyeus said:


> The RAD in the PB article is a bit simplistic. Lee has a much more sophisticated calculator on his online school, but you have to pay for that one. The on-bike check has worked super well for me. I suck at measuring. I've been riding with a dialed RAD for 2-3 years now, and I suspect I will be sizing all my bikes like this from here on out.


I have used his calculator using a variety of body dimensions. I found it very accurate because I got the same number As i got when holding a handlebar standing tall. And it matched the my bikes RAD when standing on the saw horses. One measure Kent for the body and one for the bike makes things much simpler.

Overall I like his theories and his application is good. I also like when complex things can be made simple.


----------



## andy f (Jan 13, 2004)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> a bike with 20" reach and a 15" stack will have the same RAD as a bike with a 15" reach and a 20" stack. how is this even relevant?


Lee recommends a range of angles from 56 degrees (XC) to 62 degrees (DH), which would eliminate the 20" reach/15" stack case. He calls this the RAAD.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> a bike with 20" reach and a 15" stack will have the same RAD as a bike with a 15" reach and a 20" stack. how is this even relevant?


bikes with that kind of extreme reach/stack ratio would be impractical. His theories are based on real bikes in the real world. Can you find an example of two such frames?

Also, this is not based on frame reach and stack alone. RAD measurement is BB to grips, so handlebar angles, stem dimensions like angle, stack height, spacers, etc are implied in a bike's RAD measurement. That makes it difficult to measure accurately on paper, but Lee has such a calculator and it's pretty accurate! There's a bit of a fudge factor in all of this so a bit of trial and error is required.


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

mack_turtle said:


> ..Can you find an example of two such frames?.


no, i just used a generic example that would provide the same hypotenuse


----------



## Jono_SK (Feb 11, 2019)

almazing said:


> I go strictly by ETT and reach as far as bike fit goes. 590-620 ETT and 420-460 reach. I know those numbers will fit me comfortably both seated and in the attack position. Angles don't matter as much especially since specific categories of bike have their specified ranges. Angles depend on the bike I'm looking for. Not really convinced that steep actual seat angles make climbing better or easier to be honest. I have a Slash with a real slack seat angle and an SB100 with a steeper seat angle and climbing sucks with both of them. Yes I hate climbing. All climbing sucks but is a necessary evil.


Curious - how tall are you? Inseam and arm span?


----------



## alwinvrm (Jan 31, 2021)

Interesting thread, thanks. I noticed that my set up is close to the suggested RAD and I am curious to get the bike set up correctly with the RAAD angle as well.

Now I am a bit confused; 
1) is the RAAD angle measured as the angle between level (e.g. line center front axle to center rear axle) and the RAD line or the angle between the RAD line and the line from center BB to center front axle as suggested in the drawing of Lenz Bikes here below. With a low BB these 2 measurements would lead to very different RAAD angles.

2) RAAD is supposed to be between 56 degrees for XC and 62 for DH if I recall correctly. This seems counter intuitive for me, cause I would expect the steeper RAAD angle to be for XC; any ideas about the why? Or is it maybe because an XC frame has already a steeper HA, etc.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

A DH bike is designed to shift your weight back and an XC bike designed to shift it forward. To keep your weight centered on a climb you have to shift forward, and on a descent you have to shift your weight back.


----------



## alwinvrm (Jan 31, 2021)

jeremy3220 said:


> A DH bike is designed to shift your weight back and an XC bike designed to shift it forward. To keep your weight centered on a climb you have to shift forward, and on a descent you have to shift your weight back.


Thanks, that makes sense. Any idea about how to exactly measure the RAAD angle?


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

alwinvrm said:


> Thanks, that makes sense. Any idea about how to exactly measure the RAAD angle?


I've never measured it myself.


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

alwinvrm said:


> Thanks, that makes sense. Any idea about how to exactly measure the RAAD angle?


There's more on RAAD, including how to measure here: Lee McCormack's Guide to Dialing in Your Bike for Your Riding Style by leelikesbikes - Pinkbike.

Honestly though, the RAAD is kind of secondary in Lee's system. A DH bike would most likely already be built around a RAAD that would make sense for DH. Same with XC. Setting your RAD on the right bike is typically all you really need to do.

Keeping RAAD in mind--even without hard numbers--might help make decisions though. For instance when decreasing RAD on your DH bike, you might opt for a shorter stem instead of lowering the bars. In both cases, you'd have the same RAD, but a shorter stem would increase RAAD, while lowering the bars would decrease it. On an XC bike, you might consider the opposite. Knowing the exact number isn't super important.


----------



## alwinvrm (Jan 31, 2021)

s0ckeyeus said:


> Keeping RAAD in mind--even without hard numbers--might help make decisions though. For instance when decreasing RAD on your DH bike, you might opt for a shorter stem instead of lowering the bars. In both cases, you'd have the same RAD, but a shorter stem would increase RAAD, while lowering the bars would decrease it. On an XC bike, you might consider the opposite. Knowing the exact number isn't super important.


Thanks, that is helpful.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)




----------



## JackieTreehorn8 (Mar 12, 2016)

More data. I’m not proportional (long torso, short arm)
Height formula RAD no shoe 809 mm shoe 820 mm
Deadlift bar-floor msmt (see above July post w shoe) 918 mm
All bikes (Nomad XL, hardtail XL, Wahoo trainer M w long/high stem) have about 927 mm RAD and seem to fit good. Surprised all were the same after trial and error setups over time. So I like the deadlift RAD


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

Varaxis said:


>


It'd be interesting if he would have


JackieTreehorn8 said:


> More data. I'm not proportional (long torso, short arm)
> Height formula RAD no shoe 809 mm shoe 820 mm
> Deadlift bar-floor msmt (see above July post w shoe) 918 mm
> All bikes (Nomad XL, hardtail XL, Wahoo trainer M w long/high stem) have about 927 mm RAD and seem to fit good. Surprised all were the same after trial and error setups over time. So I like the deadlift RAD


I've always had better luck with the on-bike check rather than measuring. Part of this is I suck at measuring and don't get much joy from it. I've fit every bike I have by putting the pedals on two platforms (I use two ramps laid on their side, but it's more sketchy than step ladders or picnic tables), standing on the pedals, and rotating the bike back so it's like I'm doing a deadlift on the bike. With my upper body locked out, like in a deadlift, I like having a very slight tug on my hands (i.e. an ever-so-slightly short RAD).


----------



## alwinvrm (Jan 31, 2021)

JackieTreehorn8 said:


> More data. I'm not proportional (long torso, short arm)
> ...


Thanks. Also longish torso here, but relatively long arms, so the 'deadlift RAD' is only about 15mm longer than the RAD calculated based on body length.

I was attracted to the RAD approach when I noticed that my set up was only a few centimeters off, while when cycling the set up also felt just not perfect. So I felt I should give it a try for the last bit of fine tuning.

The ideal RAAD for a 'do it all' hardtail I estimated at 59 degrees. According to that RAAD and the measured RAD, I concluded that the best approach would be to lower the stem (+ handlebars). RAAD is with a 1 degree margin correct and the RAD correct wit a margin of 5 mm.

At least when testing it in the house it feels like a breakthrough improvement. Interestingly, I would never have decided to lower the bars to increase comfort without the RAD/RAAD approach.


----------



## alwinvrm (Jan 31, 2021)

s0ckeyeus said:


> It'd be interesting if he would have
> 
> I've always had better luck with the on-bike check rather than measuring. Part of this is I suck at measuring and don't get much joy from it. I've fit every bike I have by putting the pedals on two platforms ...


I don't mind measuring and in the end it comes down to the same, I suppose. I prefer the deadlift measuring method though, because it brings body proportions into the equation and I just had somebody measure the barbell height at the end position. I don't have safe tables or ramps to perform real life testing with the bike anyway and it would be stupid to have an MTB accident at home


----------



## alwinvrm (Jan 31, 2021)

BTW, to answer part of my own initial question; I found somewhere that the RAAD angle should be measured relative to level and NOT in the way shown in the Lentz Bikes picture in my first post. I just put a 60 cm arrow/dowel at a 59 degree angle on a 1 foot wooden beam and put both beam and bicycle on an even surface.


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

alwinvrm said:


> I don't mind measuring and in the end it comes down to the same, I suppose. I prefer the deadlift measuring method though, because it brings body proportions into the equation and I just had somebody measure the barbell height at the end position. I don't have safe tables or ramps to perform real life testing with the bike anyway and it would be stupid to have an MTB accident at home


The on-bike check is basically testing the end result. Your body proportions are totally taken into account and measuring errors are taken out of the equation. But do whatever works for you. I've found Lee's system to work great on everything from my trail bike to my BMX race bike.


----------



## alwinvrm (Jan 31, 2021)

s0ckeyeus said:


> The on-bike check is basically testing the end result. Your body proportions are totally taken into account and measuring errors are taken out of the equation. But do whatever works for you. I've found Lee's system to work great on everything from my trail bike to my BMX race bike.


You have a point there. BTW, how exctly did you figure out you like the RAD a bit short (slight tug); while cycling and testing, I assume?


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

I don't mind that this topic came back up because it's a great alternative perspective for fitting bikes to the "roadie" methods. no matter how you get there and the answer you get that works for you, the important part is that the distance from your feet to your hands is important. too long or too short and it limits your range of motion and therefore your control and confidence on the bike.

I like *Pete Verdone's method* as well. the RAD I get from Lee's method was consistently 77cm, but the @pvd method yields 80cm. 3cm of difference is quite a bit when it comes to the contact points on your bike. in the future, I'll start with a RAD fit of about 80cm every time and go from there.

if I were to jump on most modern bikes that fit me according to the manufacturers' methods, the RAD is quite a bit longer than what works for me and my dimensions. I need a very short stem slammed on top of the headset, and/or a handlebar with a more pronounced backsweep to reduce the overall reach on the bike to get it a little more compact than the stock arrangement.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

All my bikes are within mm's. A steel hardtail SS, and two full sus bikes, one 26 and one 29. Both are 150/140. I'd never measured that measurement but always used the sit in the bike method. If I drop in rather than on and the reach is right, I'm good.


----------



## alwinvrm (Jan 31, 2021)

mack_turtle said:


> ...
> 
> I like *Pete Verdone's method* as well. the RAD I get from Lee's method was consistently 77cm, but the @pvd method yields 80cm. 3cm of difference is quite a bit when it comes to the contact points on your bike. in the future, I'll start with a RAD fit of about 80cm every time and go from there.
> 
> ...


Thanks, very interesting. My Lee RAD seems towork and is 81.5 cm. My PVD body length is 144 cm (I am 179 cm), and the Crank Axis to Grip Radius = B8 / RAD is 95 cm. I think I read too quickly or I shrunk 

Fixed, I should take my time. My PVD RAD is about 1 cm more than the Lee RAD,


----------



## JackieTreehorn8 (Mar 12, 2016)

JackieTreehorn8 said:


> More data. I'm not proportional (long torso, short arm)
> Height formula RAD no shoe 809 mm shoe 820 mm
> Deadlift bar-floor msmt (see above July post w shoe) 918 mm
> All bikes (Nomad XL, hardtail XL, Wahoo trainer M w long/high stem) have about 927 mm RAD and seem to fit good. Surprised all were the same after trial and error setups over time. So I like the deadlift RAD


To update, I re-did these measurements according to recent Joy of Bike video:
My RAD=925 mm
XL hardtail RAD=900 mm
Wahoo trainer bike (M frame) RAD=895 mm
XL Nomadv4 RAD=875 mm

This agrees w my general feel that the hardtail fits better, if anything slightly big. And the Nomad fits tight and I want to raise bars more.


----------



## AlpineMTBTraining (Apr 26, 2009)

JackieTreehorn8 said:


> To update, I re-did these measurements according to recent Joy of Bike video:
> My RAD=925 mm
> XL hardtail RAD=900 mm
> Wahoo trainer bike (M frame) RAD=895 mm
> ...


You're in the ball park for each of the bikes. a stem spacer rider bar or +10mm stem can make it that much closer.


----------



## provin1327 (Mar 31, 2013)

JackieTreehorn8 said:


> To update, I re-did these measurements according to recent Joy of Bike video:
> My RAD=925 mm
> XL hardtail RAD=900 mm
> Wahoo trainer bike (M frame) RAD=895 mm
> ...


I tried the measuring technique from the Joy of Bike video but found it so inconsistent. Did you run into that issue?


----------



## AlpineMTBTraining (Apr 26, 2009)

provin1327 said:


> I tried the measuring technique from the Joy of Bike video but found it so inconsistent. Did you run into that issue?


Are you getting inconsistent measurements with you bike or your body? Bike should be pretty consistent since it is an object.

measuring your body will always have inconsistency. Think about how much your body weight can fluctuate. When measuring your RAD several things can influence your measurement. Stance, shoes/no shoes, grip width, how tall you stand, shoulder shrug, plus a couple more I am forgetting in the moment.

My opinion is to get your bike to be close to your RAD measurement. It doesn't need to be perfect just close. There's always a variability n measurements. This way you are making an informed decision when you buy a bike and chose a frame size and you can objectively compare changes to your cockpit instead of guessing.


----------



## provin1327 (Mar 31, 2013)

AlpineMTBTraining said:


> Are you getting inconsistent measurements with you bike or your body? Bike should be pretty consistent since it is an object.
> 
> measuring your body will always have inconsistency. Think about how much your body weight can fluctuate. When measuring your RAD several things can influence your measurement. Stance, shoes/no shoes, grip width, how tall you stand, shoulder shrug, plus a couple more I am forgetting in the moment.
> 
> My opinion is to get your bike to be close to your RAD measurement. It doesn't need to be perfect just close. There's always a variability n measurements. This way you are making an informed decision when you buy a bike and chose a frame size and you can objectively compare changes to your cockpit instead of guessing.


I was getting inconsistent measurements with my body but after taking a few more measurements I finally got consistent 885 mm for my RAD.

I am finding Lee's calculator to be off as well. His calculator's measurement of my bikes RAD and my measurement of RAD are fairly close, within a few mm. Where things get weird is with the Steering Hand Offset or SHO. I am measuring a SHO of 25MM. His calculator is outputting a SHO of 46. That's a huge difference and it makes me question his calculator.

Ultimately on bike feel is going to be the best measure but it would be nice if the calculator was matching my measurements. I am trying to use his calculator to order the correct stem, handlebar, and # of headset spacers for a new bike frame I am waiting on.


----------



## AlpineMTBTraining (Apr 26, 2009)

provin1327 said:


> I was getting inconsistent measurements with my body but after taking a few more measurements I finally got consistent 885 mm for my RAD.
> 
> I am finding Lee's calculator to be off as well. His calculator's measurement of my bikes RAD and my measurement of RAD are fairly close, within a few mm. Where things get weird is with the Steering Hand Offset or SHO. I am measuring a SHO of 25MM. His calculator is outputting a SHO of 46. That's a huge difference and it makes me question his calculator.
> 
> Ultimately on bike feel is going to be the best measure but it would be nice if the calculator was matching my measurements. I am trying to use his calculator to order the correct stem, handlebar, and # of headset spacers for a new bike frame I am waiting on.


I find SHO a hard one to calculate or measure for my own bikes. I let it fall where ever it falls. I prefer a 50mm stem, but will go +/- 10mm if necessary for a bike, this is what I assume is the SHO I prefer. I always utilize the calculator to to get me in the ball park then use the on bike fit test to fine tune stem spacers and stem length.

In the end with this ridelogic system you're way closer to getting a proper sized frame than guessing based on size charts on a website and sales people who do not understand human biomechanics


----------



## JackieTreehorn8 (Mar 12, 2016)

provin1327 said:


> I tried the measuring technique from the Joy of Bike video but found it so inconsistent. Did you run into that issue?


Yeah, the tips of not looking down at pen and pulling your shoulder blades low are needed. And there probably is a +\- 10mm error bar regardless.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Also your knees should be straight if I didn't mention that before. They skipped over this in the video.


----------



## Bikeworks (Sep 10, 2020)

I am definitely more comfortable with a RAD+ measurement. While I'm sure it is hindering me in getting better with bunnyhops and manuals, it makes me feel so much more confident on descents and drops. For reference I am about 30mm long on my XL Epic HT and S4 Enduro. I previously had a L Epic and felt too cramped, even with a 65mm stem. Now on the XL with a 50mm stem I feel much better


----------



## AlpineMTBTraining (Apr 26, 2009)

Bikeworks said:


> I am definitely more comfortable with a RAD+ measurement. While I'm sure it is hindering me in getting better with bunnyhops and manuals, it makes me feel so much more confident on descents and drops. For reference I am about 30mm long on my XL Epic HT and S4 Enduro. I previously had a L Epic and felt too cramped, even with a 65mm stem. Now on the XL with a 50mm stem I feel much better


Going RAD+ has its advantages just like you mentioned. Some DH and enduro pros clearly use this type of fit. If you want performance in downhill and technical features like jumps and drops it makes sense if its what you are comfortable


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

I'm not the first person to "discover" the topic of RAD/RAAD, but I also assume I won't be the last. I'm digging up this thread again for totally selfish reasons, and to keep things on topic.

I want to build up a new frame next year sometime, and the frames I'm interested in I have no chance of demoing either due to covid, or just availability. Also, I'm almost always between sizes, so I've been trying to find ways to figure out what size I would need of a given bike, which was how I stumbled upon the topic.

When I actually measured my RAD using the method he shows in THIS video, it came out to 895mm. 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. 

For reference, I'm 6'1" barefoot, with a cycling inseam of 36.5in (top of pedals to top of seat), and a 0 ape index.

For those of you out there that have actually gone out and *MEASURED *your RAD (your body RAD, not what your current bike is), how accurate do you feel it has been, and have you used it to buy/size bikes correctly? *Would you feel reasonably comfortable buying a bike based on a calculated RAD number?*

For what its worth, I've been thinking for years that my current bike is a smidge too small for me. On long downhills (over 5-10min), I start to feel tension in my back almost like I'm hunching over. Now after measuring my actual RAD, and measuring my bike (and calculating it with my calculator), I find that its a little over an inch too small for me (33mm). So that gives me some confidence in the numbers... (ie, my calculator matches the gut feeling, and the measurement), I'm just not sure if its enough to buy a bike blind with it .

Also, have you guys actually tried to use RAAD? According to my math, I can't even get to "trail" RAAD angles, on any of the 26 (!) bike frames (each in two sizes, so 52 combinations). According to his RAAD measurements, I'm solidly in the XC realm, despite looking almost entirely at mid-long travel aggressive 29'ers (Banshee Titan, Privateer 141/161, Transition Spire/Sentinel, etc). The only way to get even close to getting RAD, and RAAD correct at the same time, appears to be riding a smaller frame (which would mean size L for me), with like 50mm stem, and 50mm riser bars. And that only gets me to 57.9 degrees. Most other bikes are in the 54 - 56 degree range. It seems like this part might be outdated, or just straight up wrong for people of my height (which isn't even that tall, but its taller than Lee).


----------



## Nick_M (Jan 16, 2015)

I watch few of his videos in regards of RAD/RAAD bar with, etc - it is probably ok for average height consumer with 0 apex;

For Anyone who is higher or have +1 apex ( assume same for lover and - ) those guidelines barely applicable; ( I tried to set up RAD RAAD and bar width, and it was short tall front end with insane width of the bar)
he is referring a lot to deadlift during the video, which imho is nonsense since you are not deadlifting you bike;
Reference that people do not get any bigger within last 30 years also nonsense, since bikes was not in place of right size over last 25, and only now became reasonably sized to the riders, since geometry moved away from road cycling;

Deadlift itself is an exercise of lifting weight from dead spot (ground) to your fully extension (standing straight), typically following shorter possible path for best performance results;


----------



## Grinchy8 (Jul 6, 2021)

I'm 182.9cm height, 31 inch inseam. RAD? (bb to grip center, measured in stance and shoes on wall with pencil) 800mm. Reach 2.5*Height= 457mm, bar width 4.4*height=805mm, (12 deg natural sweep)

I recently bought a 1998 FSR (size M) off craigslist. It had a 90mm no rise stem on it with old skool narrow flat bars. It was not particularly stretched out feeling to me (I wanted to slam the seat all the way back) but it definitely was very front heavy (hand heavy). Using my calculated bb to grip and reach intersection measurement point, I bought a bar and stem combination to try to get the grip center to that point in space. Worked perfectly. Bike feels right to me. 

If you can calculate the height/length offset for your grip center and anchor it to stack / reach on the propspective frames it should get you close*

*(all the previous discussion around longer top tube and can RAD work in the modern world would apply)


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

I am making my first new bike (frame only actually) purchase trying to go by the numbers (my second new bike, sorta*). The only new bike I bought I just went for a medium because I assumed I rode medium and it felt fine when I sat on it. All other bikes have been great deals at the time and I could make them work, even if they were slightly uncomfortable.

The only bike I have ever bought new (E29) is the bike that I am most comfortable on, just my favorite bike to ride. I measured it based on the RAD thing while trying to decide what frame size to buy next. Using the "holding a pen against a wall" method, my favorite bike is dead on. My XC bike (Pivot Les) is slightly long, but comfortable, though with mild lower back pain after a full race duration that doesn't hold me back. My first trail bike from 2015 Is nearly dead on, and it is comfortable too (though it looks small in pictures).

I broke with the size chart and order the small Intense Sniper instead of the recommended medium (as a pure XC race bike), based on the numbers. I think when it is done being built, it will feel right. I hope.

*I bought the bottom of the line E29 Comp, then went back a year or so later and bought the full carbon/coil model on clearance.


----------



## Kobeashi636 (2 mo ago)

stripes said:


> While I know Lee is very popular, I don’t think his fitting system fits everyone.
> 
> For me, it caused me to be too cramped, putting too much stress on my hips and midback. It also made my bike feel too twitchy for me (shorter stem, narrower bars).
> 
> ...


I haven’t bought anything off the formula yet, but I’m feeling the same way, I am 5’7”, 29” inseam and a 5’10” wingspan (which shortens my RAD number even further for my height). I currently ride mediums and although I may agree that a small would be my next best fit with the way geometries are going, when I use his RAD number measurement method on myself I am barely squeezing by to “fit” on an XS frame with a 35mm stem slammed against the headset and low rise, backswept bars… this may theoretically work for maximizing arm range of motion in relation to leg length, but I do not see myself going on a 40 mile trail ride on a bike that small, guess I need to look in the kids section at toys r us for my next model 🤣


----------



## Kobeashi636 (2 mo ago)

mack_turtle said:


> I asked Lee about that. RAD applies to modern mountain bikes with flat bars. He's had some luck applying it to CX bikes but that's more nuanced so he makes no claims about drop bar bikes. He's used the same approach to fit some CX racers but cannot apply anything like a general theory to it... yet.


But how am I supposed to get the optimal biomechanical torque at the DJ course on my gravel bike 😡


----------



## Kobeashi636 (2 mo ago)

AlpineMTBTraining said:


> I've never been a fan of cookie cutter equations. I set up a bike with the RAD his equation gave me for my height. I went and did the on bike test with my bike on 2 sawhorses. Too short. I couldn't even get the handle bar up to my hips.
> 
> I had an idea of how to measure it myself. I grabbed a spare handlebar. With my riding shoes on I stood up tall like at the top of a deadlift and measured from the ground to the handlebar. I got 30mm longer than my calculated RAD. Adjusted my bike to fit that number and the on bike test was perfect. I bought a new frame this year based on my measured RAD and I am very comfortable on it. Probably the most comfortable I have every been on a bike


So instead of spreading your feet as if they were on your pedals you just kept your feet in line with your shoulders? I agree that would increase your rad number and am wondering if that is why mine is so short doing so the staggered way


----------



## Battery (May 7, 2016)

Maybe it's just me getting old, but this whole RAD thing is just too confusing. I just want to pedal my bike. 

I can't believe this argument was resurrected. Must be a new MTBR Thanksgiving tradition


----------



## Kobeashi636 (2 mo ago)

mack_turtle said:


> I don't mind that this topic came back up because it's a great alternative perspective for fitting bikes to the "roadie" methods. no matter how you get there and the answer you get that works for you, the important part is that the distance from your feet to your hands is important. too long or too short and it limits your range of motion and therefore your control and confidence on the bike.
> 
> I like *Pete Verdone's method* as well. the RAD I get from Lee's method was consistently 77cm, but the @pvd method yields 80cm. 3cm of difference is quite a bit when it comes to the contact points on your bike. in the future, I'll start with a RAD fit of about 80cm every time and go from there.
> 
> if I were to jump on most modern bikes that fit me according to the manufacturers' methods, the RAD is quite a bit longer than what works for me and my dimensions. I need a very short stem slammed on top of the headset, and/or a handlebar with a more pronounced backsweep to reduce the overall reach on the bike to get it a little more compact than the stock arrangement.


I like this method more because what your long arm index skews on the deadlift measurement, it compensates for it on the overhead measurement. If you have a longer wingspan than height I think this would arrive at a more practical number. Going to try it when I get home, thanks for sharing I’ll update with results


----------



## Kobeashi636 (2 mo ago)

Battery said:


> Maybe it's just me getting old, but this whole RAD thing is just too confusing. I just want to pedal my bike.
> 
> I can't believe this argument was resurrected. Must be a new MTBR Thanksgiving tradition


What else is there to do all day in your tree stand than geek out calculating potential new bike frame fits 🤣


----------



## Battery (May 7, 2016)

Kobeashi636 said:


> What else is there to do all day in your tree stand than geek out calculating potential new bike frame fits 🤣


Touche


----------



## Kobeashi636 (2 mo ago)

Kobeashi636 said:


> I like this method more because what your long arm index skews on the deadlift measurement, it compensates for it on the overhead measurement. If you have a longer wingspan than height I think this would arrive at a more practical number. Going to try it when I get home, thanks for sharing I’ll update with results


Okay.. I just went down a huge rabbit hole with Pete verdone and his methods and I am now 10x more confused than I began with. Based solely on calculated frame rad and some component addition estimations, I saw myself as “unable to fit” on a stump jumper S1 without the shortest cockpit components available. In his blog he sets up a SJ for his wife (who is an inch shorter than me) and ignoring the height chart and picking solely by the geo numbers, they selected an S4 as the “optimal fit”. Now I feel like this guy is just the inverse of Lee, maybe I’m fine right in the middle 🤣 to be fair I need to get to a laptop with excel to finish the PVD calculated RAD for an apples to apples comparison but this bike choice for his wife is blowing my mind now


----------



## vitaflo (Mar 6, 2021)

Kobeashi636 said:


> Okay.. I just went down a huge rabbit hole with Pete verdone and his methods and I am now 10x more confused than I began with. Based solely on calculated frame rad and some component addition estimations, I saw myself as “unable to fit” on a stump jumper S1 without the shortest cockpit components available. In his blog he sets up a SJ for his wife (who is an inch shorter than me) and ignoring the height chart and picking solely by the geo numbers, they selected an S4 as the “optimal fit”. Now I feel like this guy is just the inverse of Lee, maybe I’m fine right in the middle 🤣 to be fair I need to get to a laptop with excel to finish the PVD calculated RAD for an apples to apples comparison but this bike choice for his wife is blowing my mind now


Probably because this is overly complicated. The entire purpose of RAD is to have it be equal to or less than the distance from your hands to your feet when in a riding position so you can get maximum range of motion/power over the bike. That's all it is.

To be fair Lee did update how to measure RAD from the article in the OP. It's pretty simple. Stand near a wall with your feet apart like you are on a bike. Take a piece of string between two hands to mimic handlebar width (or just guess). Put a pencil in the hand closest to the wall and push your shoulders down and mark the wall. Then just measure from the floor to your mark, that's your RAD.

Doesn't need to be perfect just close enough. Pick a frame/cockpit setup that is at your RAD or lower. The idea is that you have maximum power over the bike with that setup. It's like a deadlift, doing a deadlift you have max power for the lift but if you then try to pull up farther than the deadlift height with only your arms it get exponentially harder to do.

The question of course is do you ever handle your bike where you are pulling the bars up into your waist. If you do RAD might make sense, it will be easier to move the bike around. If you don't then it might not. My experience is if you're jumping a lot it might make sense. If you're doing DH...you might want to scrap it and take the longer bike that's more stable.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

vitaflo said:


> Probably because this is overly complicated. The entire purpose of RAD is to have it be equal to or less than the distance from your hands to your feet when in a riding position so you can get maximum range of motion/power over the bike. That's all it is.
> 
> To be fair Lee did update how to measure RAD from the article in the OP. It's pretty simple. Stand near a wall with your feet apart like you are on a bike. Take a piece of string between two hands to mimic handlebar width (or just guess). Put a pencil in the hand closest to the wall and push your shoulders down and mark the wall. Then just measure from the floor to your mark, that's your RAD.
> 
> ...



All this .

Don't even bother "calculating" RAD. Just go out in the garage and measure it with a pencil in your hand.

Also, as mentioned earlier in the thread, I totally bought a bike site unseen, 100% based on RAD measurements, and calculations in my own spreadsheet. I bought stem, handlebar rise/etc that was all to get me exactly to my RAD measurement.

Now, closing in a year later... I'm about 9mm over my measured RAD, and thats what feels most comfortable for me at the moment, but may fiddle with things a bit more in the future. Maybe thats a difference in how I measured RAD? Or maybe I just prefer a bit larger than RAD? Not sure.

So, I won't say "RAD" is perfect. But, I do think it can get you in the right ballpark pretty quickly. And can also maybe help you figure out which size to go with if you're between sizes.

And, I do think that probably I could go a bit larger for a more DH type role (I'm on a pretty beefy All mountain/enduro bike atm though).


----------



## Kobeashi636 (2 mo ago)

ocnLogan said:


> All this .
> 
> Don't even bother "calculating" RAD. Just go out in the garage and measure it with a pencil in your hand.
> 
> ...


I definitely agree on it being an approximation, in my case, I’m short with long arms so my proportions make a big difference in my “RAD” approximation depending on the method I use. Using the LLB method, I shouldn’t be able to fit on most production smalls, and was almost ready to pull the trigger on an extra small according to his methods (~760ish), using the PVD/RAD (Peter verdone) method, which seperates arm and body length, and includes a focus on body angle while riding, crank length, sole and pedal height off pedal axis (much more involved to calculate) I get a RAD from crank axis to bar radius of ~811-821 depending on what size crank arms I use in the equation. Right or wrong, I’m leaning towards trusting mathematical formulas used by a framebuilder more than swiping a pencil against a wall and dropping 5k based on that mark.. atleast in my case it has made a significant difference in values (50-60mm difference) and I’d now be looking at a medium rather than a small.

I don’t doubt that Fabio, Macaskill, and freestyle sports athletes have a RAD in line with the shorter LLB methods, but if you aren’t bunny hopping over walls and reaching for every last inch of leverage to finish your double backflip, I would imagine you would be much more comfortable on longer rides with the other calculated RAD value in opinion, at least in my case with long arms and short height.


----------



## Dkayak (12 mo ago)

I have very high confidence after skimming all of these comments that if I followed Lee McCormack's fitting recommendations, I'd end up at least one size too small, probably two sizes. I'm 6-1" with 34" inseam and my XL Top Fuel and XL Farley fit perfectly. My wife's L models of each model feel like clown bikes and anyone watching me try to test ride them just laughs and shakes their heads. The answer is that obvious. My gravel and road bikes are both 58 cm and fit perfectly.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Interesting that an article popped up on handlebar/grip height, from [email protected], trying to convince people to stop running so many spacers under their stem and/or high rise bars. Extra height pushes the grips further from the feet.

He tried to suggest that such a tall set up led to more defensive riding, and that lowering their cockpit would offer a more athletic position, which offers more confidence.

I think people do that for some sort of comfort, believing that an upright position is easier to maintain.


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

I'll be honest I haven't tried to figure out my RAD using Pvds calculations. However, I would be very careful taking his advice without a huge grain of salt. He builds for one person. Himself. 

His cockpit is completely custom and his bikes are not like anything you will end up buying. 

Just him riding a hardtail means his reach increases at sag. A Full suspension (what most people here ride) get shorter.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Varaxis said:


> Interesting that an article popped up on handlebar/grip height, from [email protected], trying to convince people to stop running so many spacers under their stem and/or high rise bars. Extra height pushes the grips further from the feet.
> 
> He tried to suggest that such a tall set up led to more defensive riding, and that lowering their cockpit would offer a more athletic position, which offers more confidence.
> 
> I think people do that for some sort of comfort, believing that an upright position is easier to maintain.


That might be fine for some folks however, Gene had better get the cure for scoliosis approved by the FDA so I can ride my bike!
Frankly, I hate the hell out of towering over the bar as opposed to being somewhat behind the bar. Next we'll be puting grips on the ends of the front axle!


----------



## wolfmw (Dec 18, 2020)

Dkayak said:


> I have very high confidence after skimming all of these comments that if I followed Lee McCormack's fitting recommendations, I'd end up at least one size too small, probably two sizes. I'm 6-1" with 34" inseam and my XL Top Fuel and XL Farley fit perfectly. My wife's L models of each model feel like clown bikes and anyone watching me try to test ride them just laughs and shakes their heads. The answer is that obvious. My gravel and road bikes are both 58 cm and fit perfectly.


I was skeptical too. Now a believer.

I'm 6'2.5", with a about +3 ape index. I ride an XL stumpjumper, and my *measured* RAD (~865) is pretty damn close (within about 5mm, depending how I measure) to my "ideal" setup determined by trial and error before I knew RAD existed. Lee's formula (4.47xheight = 845mm) is about 20mm short for me. 

There are some nuances to measuring that can result in absurdly short RAD if you don't get it right. You have to have hands bar width apart, in a deadlift position (ie, bar in front of the body), shoes on, feet positioned like they would be on your pedals. Doing those things vs just walking up to the wall with my arm at my side and marking it makes like 40-50mm difference. 

On the bike, you have to measure from the center of crank spindle to the line between the center of grips. It's a little tricky, but a string or straight edge across the bars works great. That way you're comparing directly to the same position you established to measure on the wall.

Unless you are pretty out of the norm with body proportions or bike setup preferences, I bet you're actually closer than you think.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

Dkayak said:


> I have very high confidence after skimming all of these comments that if I followed Lee McCormack's fitting recommendations, I'd end up at least one size too small, probably two sizes. I'm 6-1" with 34" inseam and my XL Top Fuel and XL Farley fit perfectly. My wife's L models of each model feel like clown bikes and anyone watching me try to test ride them just laughs and shakes their heads. The answer is that obvious. My gravel and road bikes are both 58 cm and fit perfectly.


For what its worth, I'm 6'1", with a 36.5in cycling inseam (pedal to saddle distance).

And for ME, using my actual RAD measurement (not calculated, I actually measured), and my calculator I referenced above, and plugging in the numbers for the L and XL Trek Top fuel, and Farley, this is what I get.

2023 Top Fuel
L: 26mm too small
XL: 2mm too small, but workable

2023 Farley
L: 37mm too small
XL: 30mm too small

Obviously thats my measurements, and not yours. But, as a similarly long legged person of the same height, I would also 100% be on the XL for both of those bikes. So I'd actually say, if I had to blindly guess, that your measurement would probably be ballpark similar to mine.

I have 2 other buddies who bought bikes using RAD, and the spreadsheet I did (both during Covid, when test rides and demos weren't really a thing). One is 6', and rides a Transition Sentinel in size large, while the other is 6'2", and he rides an XL Marin Alpine Trail. One is bang on their RAD, the other is about 20mm over. As I mentioned before, I'm currently about 9mm over, but maybe not done fiddling yet.

Not saying its perfect... But, if you can't get a test ride on a bike you want, IMO its a good way to get you into the right ballpark.

I mostly use my quick and dirty measurements now when looking at bikes to see which size I should be on, as at 6'1", I feel like we're constantly right between L, and XL, and what I've noticed... is that some companies L's, are actually larger than others XL's. So its useful to know which one I should probably be on for a given bike.


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

Varaxis said:


> Interesting that an article popped up on handlebar/grip height, from [email protected], trying to convince people to stop running so many spacers under their stem and/or high rise bars. Extra height pushes the grips further from the feet.
> 
> He tried to suggest that such a tall set up led to more defensive riding, and that lowering their cockpit would offer a more athletic position, which offers more confidence.
> 
> I think people do that for some sort of comfort, believing that an upright position is easier to maintain.


Depends on personal mobility too. My hips and low back feel better, and I ride with more confidence more upright because I’m not injuring myself as I ride. 
Gene is preaching the same thing Lee is, the only difference is the packaging.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Varaxis said:


> Interesting that an article popped up on handlebar/grip height, from [email protected], trying to convince people to stop running so many spacers under their stem and/or high rise bars. Extra height pushes the grips further from the feet.


I agree a lot of riders are too upright which puts them in a passive position but spacers and risers are not good indicators of how high someone's bars are. I mean if you're 5'5" yeah max spacers and 40 mm riser bars are probably a bit much but really you need some sort of measurement with context.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

The PVD method is a lot simpler and gets better results. I'm 174cm tall or 5'9" and the Lee McCormack RAD method gives me about 775mm. That's very short and difficult to achieve on most medium bikes.

PVD method takes into account the functional length of my arms and yields a range of 800-820, which is easy to achieve with most XC bikes using a 70-80mm stem, or most modern trail bikes using a 40-50mm stem. Some bikes are LONG and the higher travel forks + a long reach makes these bikes just too big for the way I like a bike to handle. In other words, some modern bikes are just too big for the rider, depending on terrain and riding style.


----------



## vitaflo (Mar 6, 2021)

jeremy3220 said:


> I agree a lot of riders are too upright which puts them in a passive position but spacers and risers are not good indicators of how high someone's bars are. I mean if you're 5'5" yeah max spacers and 40 mm riser bars are probably a bit much but really you need some sort of measurement with context.


Agreed, some bikes have very low stacks and others have tall stacks. Whether you use spacers/riser on those bikes will be very different.

The stack on my bike is pretty low. I can run a 50mm riser bar and still be less than my "optimum" RAD (measured). Personally I prefer a more upright feel because I tend to ride way over the front of the bike. I don't like riding with my weight shifted back a ton (unless it's super steep). I can see how someone who tends to ride with their weight shifted back a lot might want lower bars/spacers to maintain front grip. But I've never had that issue because of how I ride.


----------

