# Stack and Reach Charts for pretty much all XL Bikes



## asollie (May 13, 2014)

For all you tall people out there, I've compiled geometry for pretty much every XL and XXL bike I can find. What follows is the most exhaustive collection of bikes for tall people that exists on the web to the best of my knowledge.

Lots of information about how and why I size bikes using stack and reach: The Earth Remains - Journal - Bikes for the Very Tall

EDIT: Added another way to look at the charts here. This is more useful than the links below.

Click on any chart for an interactive view, and access to all the geometry numbers for each bike featured.

*Full Suspension Bikes:*


*
Hardtails:*


*
Road Bikes:*


*All-Road Bikes:*


*
Fat Bikes:*


----------



## Crockpot2001 (Nov 2, 2004)

Thank you!!!!!


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

Here - top up your road bike data:
https://www.cyclingabout.com/list-of-xxl-xxxl-bikes-for-tall-cyclists-62-63-64cm/

Of course, not all bikes are available in all markets, but GOOD EFFORT.

I hope we get something new out of Sea Otter for us tall types.


----------



## asollie (May 13, 2014)

TooTallUK said:


> Here - top up your road bike data:
> https://www.cyclingabout.com/list-of-xxl-xxxl-bikes-for-tall-cyclists-62-63-64cm/
> 
> Of course, not all bikes are available in all markets, but GOOD EFFORT.


Yeah, I'm American and the list is definitely biased towards common brands in the US. Could you tell me the most common or important European companies I should add to my list?


----------



## PDKL45 (Jun 1, 2008)

Cycling About is a good place to start.

Complete List of Off-Road Adventure Touring Bikes with Pricing - CyclingAbout

A Complete List of Touring Bicycle Manufacturers with Pricing - CyclingAbout

List of XXL Touring Bikes for Tall Cyclists: 62cm, 63cm, 64cm - CyclingAbout

*Edit: Sorry, I was a bit late to the party. I will leave the links here, though.


----------



## forealz (Dec 12, 2016)

I tried suggesting this via an edit request, but I really think you should add weight limits for frames for us bigger fellas. 

I sent you a few weight limits for a few brands/models.


----------



## chasejj (Sep 22, 2008)

You should add Guerilla Gravity bikes to your list. You'll find them firmly on the far right side of your graphs. I'm buying one now in XL. Nicolai is also very big rider friendly and makes some of the most artfully finished bikes on the planet


----------



## Rafu (Oct 25, 2013)

That table is very good  In fact it gave me a lot second thoughts and I need to revise my sizing approach as I was ignoring Stack and focusing on Reach only.


----------



## Peatbog78 (Dec 7, 2016)

This is brilliant, thank you!


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Awsome! Thanks.
Now that I have my XXL Tallboy I will never buy a mountain bike with under 500mm of reach. Never had a bike that actually fit me before. I almost wish I had waited for the Hightower, but would only use the extra travel a couple times a year.


----------



## tdailey (May 7, 2007)

Yes...thanks for you spreadsheet...I reference it often! I'm a Trek guy though and noticed you are missing the 23" Trek Fuel 29er (in aluminum). It would slide into your 3 spot on full suspension bikes with a BB-HT of 819.6. Also, the "XXL" Trek Fuel Carbon you have on the list is a 21.5"...they do not make the 23" in that model...


----------



## asollie (May 13, 2014)

tdailey said:


> Yes...thanks for you spreadsheet...I reference it often! I'm a Trek guy though and noticed you are missing the 23" Trek Fuel 29er (in aluminum). It would slide into your 3 spot on full suspension bikes with a BB-HT of 819.6. Also, the "XXL" Trek Fuel Carbon you have on the list is a 21.5"...they do not make the 23" in that model...


Good catches! I need to pay more attention to Trek. Changed the 21.5" carbon model to XL and added the XXL/23" aluminum version to the spreadsheet.


----------



## Rugerfan777 (Sep 7, 2017)

asollie said:


> Good catches! I need to pay more attention to Trek. Changed the 21.5" carbon model to XL and added the XXL/23" aluminum version to the spreadsheet.


What about the Scott spark 760 or the genius?


----------



## Stepford (Feb 4, 2017)

I know there's not a lot of love for Diamondback around here, but the Release is a pretty decent (and well reviewed) FS trail bike. The XL has stack and reach numbers of 611.8 and 473.3mm, respectively. This puts it on the small end of the chart shown - which agrees with anecdotal reports of some riders as short as 6'1" (myself among them) being more comfortable on the XL (21") than the L (19") size Release.


----------



## Spinster (Apr 8, 2008)

Huge thanks to Asolie for putting that chart together.
I studied it endlessly this winter trying to decide what to build up.
I'm a bit over 6'-6"/ 200cm and went with an Evil Wreckoning.
Its definitely long and with a 35mm riser bar, fits pretty good.

An equally tall friend picked up the XXL Hightower, but thats shorter travel than my desires.
I see that SC is advertising 'Hightower LT', but be warned- I spoke with SC about buying a Hightower in May and putting a Fox 36 fork on it and they said the bike performed horribly with even a 150mm fork. I think they are just trying to get another bike out there, as they were a bit light in travel for what most riders are looking for.

I spoke with Intense and they are rolling out a new Carbine 29 that could be another contender for us tall trail folk out there...


----------



## @[email protected] (Aug 25, 2017)

I wish I'd found this list 2 months ago. It took me a lot of research to arrive at my 2018 fuel ex 8.

Great list thanks.


----------



## Rugerfan777 (Sep 7, 2017)

View attachment 1158753

Spark 745 Spark 760 Spark 745
View attachment 1158754


Son Josh 6"2 200lbs and Jashper 6"3 215 lbs

View attachment 1158755


6"4 283lbs ex bodybuilder

View attachment 1158756


745 mine

View attachment 1158757


745 again

View attachment 1158758


Josh riding, much bigger than his Walmart bike.

View attachment 1158759


760

Reach and stack for Scott Spark 745 and 760 large.


----------



## Rugerfan777 (Sep 7, 2017)

asollie said:


> For all you tall people out there, I've compiled geometry for pretty much every XL and XXL bike I can find. What follows is the most exhaustive collection of bikes for tall people that exists on the web to the best of my knowledge.
> 
> Lots of information about how and why I size bikes using stack and reach: The Earth Remains - Journal - Bikes for the Very Tall
> 
> ...


https://www.singletracks.com/blog/m...deal-trail-bike-geometry-top-brands-compared/
Here you go this should help you with your chart.


----------



## forrestvt (May 20, 2007)

Wow this is fantastic!!! I had been building my own for FS bikes and fatbikes but nothing to this level of detail and analysis! Very well done!!

If you would tho, both 907 and Fatback bikes should get added to the list as then make some XLs that are taller than most. And the Lenz Fatillac for that matter.


----------



## asollie (May 13, 2014)

forrestvt said:


> Wow this is fantastic!!! I had been building my own for FS bikes and fatbikes but nothing to this level of detail and analysis! Very well done!!
> 
> If you would tho, both 907 and Fatback bikes should get added to the list as then make some XLs that are taller than most. And the Lenz Fatillac for that matter.


Thanks! I couldn't find Stack/Reach numbers for the 907 fatbikes. Same with the Lenz Fatillac. Not sure if they even know... seems like that thing was welded together while someone was drunk. Let me know if you see numbers for any of those bikes somewhere. Added two Fatback bikes.


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

My old 907 fat bike was extremely short, not sure if that has changed on the newer models.

it would be great if you could include the '_size name_', ie '_*L*_' or '*21"*' in the model circle.
For example, I see the two Trek Fuels listed, carbon and alloy, very different numbers. I am fairly sure this is because the alloy comes in a 23" size and the carbon only goes up to 21", but it's still good to mention, for people who aren't familiar with a certain bike.

On the other hand, you can remove the '_model level_' names ie '5' or '_pro_' as long as they use the same frame.

Thanks a lot!


----------



## asollie (May 13, 2014)

Tjaard said:


> My old 907 fat bike was extremely short, not sure if that has changed on the newer models.
> 
> it would be great if you could include the '_size name_', ie '_*L*_' or '*21"*' in the model circle.
> For example, I see the two Trek Fuels listed, carbon and ally, very different. I am fairly sure this is because the alloy comes in a 23" size and the carbon doesn't, but it's still good to mention, for people who aren't familiar with a certain bike.
> ...


It would be great if I could do that. There are limits to google docs though! You can always look it up in the spreadsheets. I'm hoping to eventually move all these charts to some better system, but that would take a while and I'm busy trying to find a real job right now.


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

asollie said:


> It would be great if I could do that. There are limits to google docs though! You can always look it up in the spreadsheets. I'm hoping to eventually move all these charts to some better system, but that would take a while and I'm busy trying to find a real job right now.


I think we are misunderstanding each other.

I meant: in the bike name cell(column A), add the size (from column H) and remove the model level:

ie: instead of 'FUEL EX 5 29' in column A, put: 'FUEL EX 29, 23"'. then you can delete column H.

I would also suggest removing the standover height column. Your target audience is tall people and big frames. Standover is (almost)never an issue for those users. Even more importantly, the published numbers are rubbish. It depends where you measure it, which tires you have etc, etc..


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

*Comments on your blog post*

Hi,

Here are some comments on your blog post.

You calculate _"Pythag BB -> HT_" and "_Chill factor_".

Lee McCormack has also been using those measurements, and he uses the _Chillfactor_ angle as a determinant of riding style (for mountain bikes), so a steeper angle is more DH oriented, a lower angle is more XC oriented..

"_For mountain biking, it would be incredible to have a way to calculate your downhill seated angle to tip-over and your uphill seated angle to tip-over,_. "

For descending, I think it is a bit easier than that, since you won't be sitting down on a (steep)descent. Most MTB technique suggests balancing weight over bottom bracket, so we can simply calculate front front/rear center ratios.


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

Can we please make this a sticky??


----------



## KTMDirtFace (Aug 7, 2008)

Great chart thanks.

Confirms that I'm probably best off with a GG Smash for my next bike ( Long travel 29er )

Edit: Might want to add the GG Pedalhead to your hardtail chart too. I have it its a great bike for tall humans. Guerrilla Gravity | Pedalhead | Info, Geometry, and Specs


----------



## Troy Carter (Dec 7, 2016)

WOW, great work! Thanks...


----------



## asollie (May 13, 2014)

Spent some time messing with Tableau and created the best way to visualize this data to date.

Check it out and let me know what you think.


----------



## Crockpot2001 (Nov 2, 2004)

asollie said:


> Spent some time messing with Tableau and created the best way to visualize this data to date.
> 
> Check it out and let me know what you think.


Again, WELL DONE! Confirms that my Camber was a good choice for me


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

:thumbsup:


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Tjaard said:


> Hi,
> 
> Here are some comments on your blog post.
> 
> ...


Lee's using distance between BB and grips (not HT) though which makes a bit more sense to me since handle bar height is easily adjusted unlike reach.


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

Nice data visualization but I don't think this is the data for that style. I have to 'reverse' the data in my head for it to work as I am having to look 'backwards' at the same information - stack and reach 4 times in 4 different directions. In this case I would prefer to see the data either on 4 separate sheets or 4 different layers that I can switch on / off on the same set of axis.
I only hope you understand that!


----------



## Rugerfan777 (Sep 7, 2017)

Need Scott Genius and Spark please.


----------



## seat_boy (May 16, 2006)

What do the various sizes of the circles represent?


----------



## asollie (May 13, 2014)

TooTallUK said:


> Nice data visualization but I don't think this is the data for that style. I have to 'reverse' the data in my head for it to work as I am having to look 'backwards' at the same information - stack and reach 4 times in 4 different directions. In this case I would prefer to see the data either on 4 separate sheets or 4 different layers that I can switch on / off on the same set of axis.
> I only hope you understand that!


Unfortunately, I'm not sure what you mean. With the Tableau chart you can add filters, maybe that will help you? Think of it as looking at a bike from the drive-side... higher up the chart means the bike is taller, farther right means it is longer.



seat_boy said:


> What do the various sizes of the circles represent?


They represent the distance from the BB to the top of the head tube. Bigger circles mean bigger distances. Essentially the bigger the circle, the bigger the You can read more about that here: The Earth Remains - Journal - Bikes for the Very Tall


----------



## asollie (May 13, 2014)

Hello again everyone! I've made some new Tableau charts and compiled everything into a Tableau "story", which isn't the most elegant way to present info but at least it lets me provide one link that will take you to everything. Let me know what you think!


----------



## KTMDirtFace (Aug 7, 2008)

asollie said:


> Hello again everyone! I've made some new Tableau charts and compiled everything into a Tableau "story", which isn't the most elegant way to present info but at least it lets me provide one link that will take you to everything. Let me know what you think!


I'm browsing through it and its fantastic. Thanks for the work!!!!!!!!!!!

As a Tall gangly bugger, how exactly does stack effect things?

I know reach effects how many times I smash my knees into the bars while standing. But what does stack do?

and I know from trying a few bikes that slack seat angles Really suck.. ( looking at you Trek and Santa Cruz...among others )

So the POLE is way the hell out there on reach, but its stack isn't that high?

For what its worth i'm on a guerrilla gravity pedalhead XL and have a GG smash XL on order.

I know there is some tall folks on here on SC XXL hightower LT's, but according to stack and reach.. its not really close to the POLE and GG bikes?

I cannot try them all because.....no one ever has those where I live and I live in a prety MTB town. The shop here told me the Evil Wreck XL would fit me. I demo'd a Calling because its all they had in XL.. and it was by far one of the smallest bikes I have ever put feet to pedals on. My dad is 6'2" ish.. and he could probably fit on most XL's.. but that is a far cry from 6'6"-6'7" where I am.


----------



## asollie (May 13, 2014)

KTMDirtFace said:


> As a Tall gangly bugger, how exactly does stack effect things?


Glad you like it! Stack is really important for some tall people and not as important for others. A ton of my height is in my legs so I my seatpost has to be really high up. This means I need (a) a steep seatpost angle, like you mentioned and (b) I need the stack to be pretty high so I'm not hunched way over the bike with my bars a foot below my saddle. Even with a really high stack height, my saddle is level with my bars with the dropper post fully dropped. That is where a lot of people have their saddle at its highest, so it makes it harder for me to get my weight properly back for steep descending.


----------



## svinyard (Aug 14, 2017)

Love this list, thank you. Super helpful. I'm 6-4, lean novice bike purchaser and need all the help I can get.

Fwiw I do think Transition has decently sized XL bikes with about 633 stack and about 500 reach...tho the top tube aren't massively long.

As a side question, what are the standout do it all bikes in here for a Trail bike? The Hightower seems to hold a firm spot there but are their others that are clear favorites with a sweet balance of down/up performance?


----------



## KTMDirtFace (Aug 7, 2008)

asollie said:


> Glad you like it! Stack is really important for some tall people and not as important for others. A ton of my height is in my legs so I my seatpost has to be really high up. This means I need (a) a steep seatpost angle, like you mentioned and (b) I need the stack to be pretty high so I'm not hunched way over the bike with my bars a foot below my saddle. Even with a really high stack height, my saddle is level with my bars with the dropper post fully dropped. That is where a lot of people have their saddle at its highest, so it makes it harder for me to get my weight properly back for steep descending.


Thanks makes sense. I have very long legs and arms.

I was on a Yeti SB66 XL until recently.. with like spanks highest rise bars. my seat is still WAY over the bars. I can't stand to ride my yeti now.

Its not so bad on my GG Pedalhead XL. Some pics of two of my bikes.. and the demo Evil Calling XL.


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

Looking good. You're certainly helping explain a lot of data with your efforts. 
Once again, thank you for this work. It is invaluable for us taller folks and saves me my pages of hand-written notes and tables when bike-shopping.


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

The Evil and Yeti bikes make my teeth itch. Not nice.


----------



## Peatbog78 (Dec 7, 2016)

Brilliant work Asollie, thanks again for putting this together👍🏻

Would you mind adding the new SantaCruz Nomad when you can please?


----------



## asollie (May 13, 2014)

Peatbog78 said:


> Brilliant work Asollie, thanks again for putting this together👍🏻
> 
> Would you mind adding the new SantaCruz Nomad when you can please?


Done! Or at least it has been added to the google sheet. Tableau and Google don't seem to be getting along this morning so it won't be in the Tableau charts till later.


----------



## Peatbog78 (Dec 7, 2016)

Awesome, I'll check back- thank you


----------



## Slyham (Jun 24, 2015)

As a tall guy with long legs I did the same research. Your work in Tableau is awesome!

The Felt Surplus, Fuji Bighorn (2016-2017), Vassago OptimusTi, and Guerrilla Gravity Pedalhead are some more hardtails to add. The Surplus has a 681 mm stack height!

I got my XXL Stumpjumper last year. First bike that fits me. I'm loving it.


----------



## asollie (May 13, 2014)

Slyham said:


> The Felt Surplus, Fuji Bighorn (2016-2017), Vassago OptimusTi, and Guerrilla Gravity Pedalhead are some more hardtails to add. The Surplus has a 681 mm stack height!


Thanks! Added all those aside from the Fuji. I'm less interested in bikes that aren't being made anymore, but I'll get around to adding it sometime. Tableau is updated.


----------



## Slyham (Jun 24, 2015)

asollie said:


> Thanks! Added all those aside from the Fuji. I'm less interested in bikes that aren't being made anymore, but I'll get around to adding it sometime. Tableau is updated.


Thanks. The Bighorn is still being made, but the 2018 is following the longer and slacker trend and dropped the stack height a bunch.


----------



## davidfrench (Jan 25, 2011)

I can't believe I hadn't reply to this thread yet, and thanks Alexander (asollie) for making this doc and mentioning the DirtySixer in it. 
Better than words, a picture of 6'10" Alex (another one!) between his XXL 29er Karate Monkey and one of our first proto DirtySixer 36er size 3XL (edited with new 2018 sizing).


----------



## TOOtallG (Mar 9, 2018)

Love the info in this thread. I havent biked in years and am 6'9" with 38+ inseam and long arms. Does anyone have any feelings about the Cannondale Trail 2 in XXL. Found a pretty good deal on one and fits me pretty well, but like i said just getting back into biking.
thanks


----------



## asollie (May 13, 2014)

TOOtallG said:


> Love the info in this thread. I havent biked in years and am 6'9" with 38+ inseam and long arms. Does anyone have any feelings about the Cannondale Trail 2 in XXL. Found a pretty good deal on one and fits me pretty well, but like i said just getting back into biking.
> thanks


In that price range you should also consider the Felt Surplus and Kona Honzo. Those are a little more upright and a little longer respectively, but will feel like they're a similar size. I added the Cannondale Trail to the spreadsheet so you can look at the three of those together.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...cRDPqN8oJC3tCy-kdNzjuRI8M/edit#gid=1088505646


----------



## TOOtallG (Mar 9, 2018)

ok i will check those out. thank you.


----------



## Slyham (Jun 24, 2015)

TOOtallG said:


> Love the info in this thread. I havent biked in years and am 6'9" with 38+ inseam and long arms. Does anyone have any feelings about the Cannondale Trail 2 in XXL. Found a pretty good deal on one and fits me pretty well, but like i said just getting back into biking.
> thanks


I've never ridden on one, but the specs look pretty good. There are not many bikes that have an XXL size especially one in the shop you can try. If it fits and you found a good deal then I think it would be a good bike to get back into mountain biking IMHO.


----------



## TOOtallG (Mar 9, 2018)

thanks. yea the shop is going to let me demo it too and cut the price 200$ so ill see how i feel just to be sure


----------



## toni31 (Jul 22, 2012)

204cm /or 6'7" here, 38" inseam (probably)

I must say I think manufacturers have been shrinking the geometries over the years (and it should be other way around, because people are getting taller, not smaller.. :madmax::madmax

What I have learned over the years is that geometry on the paper is VASTLY different when you actually sit on the bike for real. Some bikes that had large numbers for TT/REACH/STACH felt small in real world and vice versa obviously.

------

Havent owned much bikes but from what I have:

3-4 years ago I had Speciliazed Hardrock 29 size 23", one of these I think: https://www.specialized.com/us/en/hardrock-sport-disc-29/p/35007?color=79776-35007

and the overall feel I had on the bike (top tube length and reach were perfect for me).

Than something happened to the frame (dont ask) and I was warrantied with RockHopper 29 in same size (because they were out of Hardrock frames)

https://www.specialized.com/us/en/rockhopper-29/p/115566

and this bike, although similar in geometry on paper, was WAY too short in top tube for me and I hated it!!

I just cant describe this, how can just little bit different seat and head tube angle change everything!

Obviously I played with seat seatback and different stems as always, but this didnt helped at all.

The worst thing is that Specialized doesnt do such large geometry today in HT bike.

There was a Crave model from Specialized (that was similarly long but lasted only a year or two and didnt appear since for sale):

https://static.evanscycles.com/prod...black-charcoal-rocket-red-EV193866-7500-1.jpg

----------

For FS bikes, I owned Kona Colair (2012 I think) that was huge and perfect for me but I wasnt so much into hard off-roading back than (not even today) so I sold it after 2 years.

https://ep1.pinkbike.org/p5pb6935079/p5pb6935079.jpg

One FS bike that is very large and still on offer is Specialized Camber of Stumpjumper 29 in size XXL. I tried to ride Camber once and it was huge, it would be perfect for me, but I am not looking for FS bike.

---------

I recently bought Marin Four Corners XL and I must say that despite the numbers, bike doesnt feel that big to me. In fact I feel that is somehow too short for me. Not sure what is my problem but many bikes simply feel to short when I first try them and this tells me immediately am I going to like the bike or not. (if I only didint have to buy them to find out in the first place )

https://www.marinbikes.com/gb/bikes/four-corners-blue

I also owned Diverge DSW 2017 64, again reasonably large but I still feel it lacked little bit in top tube. (maybe I forgot to sit on the bikes over the years )

https://www.specialized.com/us/en/bikes/road/diverge-elite-dsw/119017


----------



## Slyham (Jun 24, 2015)

toni31 said:


> 204cm /or 6'7" here, 38" inseam (probably)
> 
> I must say I think manufacturers have been shrinking the geometries over the years (and it should be other way around, because people are getting taller, not smaller.. :madmax::madmax
> 
> ...


I currently ride an XXL Stumpjumper and love it. First bike that really fits. I plan on building up a Kona Honzo as a single speed and bikepacking hardtail.

Have you looked at the Honzo or Big Honzo?


----------



## toni31 (Jul 22, 2012)

No, havent tried, but its not really my type of bike: fattie tires, single ring in front... and I imagine its expensive. I dont really need and want expensive bikes.


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

KTMDirtFace said:


> As a Tall gangly bugger, how exactly does stack effect things?
> 
> I know reach effects how many times I smash my knees into the bars while standing. But what does stack do?


Stack is simply the height of the front of the bike frame. As you raise the saddle, you need to raise the grips too. But the ratio is *NOT 1:1.* It depends on body proportions , flexibility, riding style etc.

You can raise the position of the grips by using more spacers underneath the stem and using a high rise handle bar, but there is a practical limit there. For many tall riders a bike with a low stack simply won't let them put the grips where they need them.

Point two is that, even if you _*CAN*_ raise the position of the grips (by the above methods), it will bring them closer, shortening the effective reach. This is because MTB's have a fairly slack head angle.

*The relationship is about 0.4:1, so for every cm of lower frame stack, you will reduce the effective reach by 4 mm when you set your grips at the same height.*

The easier way to look at this is combining them both into one BB-HT distance as Alex has done in his chart.

So, looking for bikes that have a big number for that diagonal is a good start.


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

svinyard said:


> ... has decently sized .. bikes with about 633 stack and about 500 reach...though the top tubes aren't massively long.


If a bike has fairly long reach but a short effective toptube, that means the seat angle is steep.

That is great for us tall folks, since the slack (actual) seat tube angles on many full suspension bikes means that a tall seat height ends up as a slacker effective seat tube angle than a low seat height.

This is even worse, since most bikes have the same length chainstays in every size, so our weight is already more rear biased then short folks weight.


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

And definitely missing the Nicolai (or Mojo) bikes.

G13 XXL: 550mm reach, 658mm stack, for a BB-HT of 857mm it's far and away the biggest bike in your chart. Similar numbers for their other bikes.

Even better, long chain stays and steep seat angles mean they are well suited to tall riders.

And not quite so extreme, but still interesting: Bird Aeris.

Aeris AM 9, Xl: 520 mm reach, 632 mm stack.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Tjaard said:


> You can raise the grips by using more spacers underneath the stem and using a high rise handle bar, but there is a practical limit there. For many tall riders a bike with a low stack simply won't let them put the grips where they need them.


I'd also like to remind people that the mfg's listed stack height is all you get with the stock fork. The listed stack height is with the max amount of spacers under the stem the stock fork with hold. Don't buy a bike thinking "well I'll just raise the stack by adding spacers under the stem".


----------



## asollie (May 13, 2014)

My new job blocks Google Docs (A move designed specifically to drive me crazy. Who blocks Google Docs but not facebook??), so I'm having more trouble keeping the spreadsheet up to date.

_Would any of you regulars want to gain edit permissions to the the spreadsheet? Off the top of my head there are the new Stumpjumpers, the new Surly, and a new Yeti that need to be added. You wouldn't be responsible for maintaining it going forward, just sharing the work and adding any bikes you see fit.
_
EDIT: Found two guys who are going to help me out!


----------



## seat_boy (May 16, 2006)

The stack height should be based on the frame, not the fork. Of course, the fork comes cut, so you can't add extra height without buying a new, uncut fork. But that uncut fork won't change the stack, it will just mean you can get the bars higher.



jeremy3220 said:


> I'd also like to remind people that the mfg's listed stack height is all you get with the stock fork. The listed stack height is with the max amount of spacers under the stem the stock fork with hold. Don't buy a bike thinking "well I'll just raise the stack by adding spacers under the stem".


----------



## davidfrench (Jan 25, 2011)

Posting a quick illustration using a picture of a 29er custom frame (custom fabricated for a 7'1" rider) I found online and the DirtySixer 36er. Even if there's no measurements on the illustration, that will help understand more how big wheels works well for tall guys like us. In yellow, this is our DirtySixer AllRoad size 4XL, there is a 5XL available to.


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

Added a few more big full suspension bikes.

it's really interesting to see how big bikes really are, compared to others, rather than just the name of the size (ie so many XL's are bigger than other XXL's)


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

jeremy3220 said:


> I'd also like to remind people that the mfg's listed stack height is all you get with the stock fork. The listed stack height is with the max amount of spacers under the stem the stock fork with hold. Don't buy a bike thinking "well I'll just raise the stack by adding spacers under the stem".


That is incorrect. By definition "Stack" refers to the height at the top of the headset, so below any spacers.

You are correct that it's based on the stock fork: If you install a taller or shorter axle-to crown (travel)fork, it will raise or lower the stack (and shorten or lengthen the reach a bit too)


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Ibis Ripmo XL has a 493mm reach. should be on the chart.
https://www.ibiscycles.com/bikes/ripmo/
edit NM it already there.


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

alexbn921 said:


> Ibis Ripmo XL has a 493mm reach. should be on the chart.
> https://www.ibiscycles.com/bikes/ripmo/
> edit NM it already there.


809mm on the BB-HT is good but not great. I'd say the true "tall person bikes" need have a reach well over 500mm.


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

toni31 said:


> 204cm /or 6'7" here, 38" inseam (probably)
> What I have learned over the years is that geometry on the paper is VASTLY different when you actually sit on the bike for real. Some bikes that had large numbers for TT/REACH/STACH felt small in real world and vice versa obviously.


There can be a few reasons for that:

1: the printed charts are often wrong.

2: It's important to keep in mind what stack and reach actually mean: the length and height of the FRAME.

So, they are great to compare bikes, assuming you are willing to adjust the rest of the set-up to match.

If you are riding a demo bike, with stock saddle, bars and stem, and without adjusting the positions of those parts, then of course they will feel different! For example if you have a 30mm riser bar, you can easily move the grips 20mm forward or back by rolling the bar in the stem, that's equiavalent to an entire size change in many bikes!

3: Also remember that stack and reach are interdependent, so yes, a bike with low stack, will be shorter than a taller bike with a longer listed reach, once you set the bars at the same height.

if you setup two bikes with the same saddle, set the same position relative to the BB, and the same for the grips, they will fit the same.


----------



## asollie (May 13, 2014)

Tjaard said:


> 809mm on the BB-HT is good but not great. I'd say the true "tall person bikes" need have a reach well over 500mm.


I definitely have my eye on it. I think it has a pretty steep seat tube angle, which means that if your seatpost is way up you won't be hanging off the back of the bike.


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

Nicolai’s XXL sizes seem to remain far and away the longest and biggest full-suspension bikes out there.

Any others big bikes that are not on the chart yet?


----------



## jmeb (Jun 4, 2014)

Diamondback's Release would be a good addition. Specs are here: https://www.diamondback.com/mountain-bikes/all-mountain/release-2#bike_sizes


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

jmeb said:


> Diamondback's Release would be a good addition. Specs are here: https://www.diamondback.com/mountain-bikes/all-mountain/release-2#bike_sizes


Not really. reach in the 470's and stack around 610mm is hardly a "bike for the very tall"


----------



## brawlo (Mar 13, 2012)

Pole bikes need to be in there. See recent post


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

brawlo said:


> Pole bikes need to be in there. See recent post


Pole [full suspension] bikes have been in there for a while. Since they are so long, look for them WAY over on the right.

EDIT: 
You were talking about the hard tails, I had not looked at those. Sorry.


----------



## asollie (May 13, 2014)

Tjaard said:


> Not really. reach in the 470's and stack around 610mm is hardly a "bike for the very tall"


And, in my very personal opinion, you'd have to be crazy to get a 27.5 bike at our height. It just doesn't make sense given how high our centers of gravity are.


----------



## Kajjal (Dec 14, 2013)

While still available the camber 29ers in xxl are good sized bikes, reach 487 , stack 678 and comes with a 90mm stem. I am 6ft7 and it would fit taller than me.


----------



## brawlo (Mar 13, 2012)

Tjaard said:


> Pole bikes have been in there for a while. Since they are so long, look for them WAY over on the right.


Fair enough. I have only been scouring the hardtail and fat bike sections. The Pole Taiga, Taival and Kona Wozo need to be added to the hardtail and fat bike sections. They're the big options


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

I wanted to add to the conversation that the balance of most bikes starts to get screwed up around 490mm reach. It seems like every manufacturer wants the shortest possible rear chainstay length. Keeping the short rear and adding up to 100mm to the front makes it hard to get front end grip. Tallboy 3 form small to XXL is +100mm. I love the fit of my bike, but have to keep the front end lower than I want for weight distribution. If it had a 10mm longer rear, it would be perfect.
I sat on a pole bike and even with the long reach in the large it felt to small for me. The XL Machine would be a compelling bike to try out. Not 100% convinced that their frame building technic yields the strongest frame with an offset shock.


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

brawlo said:


> Fair enough. I have only been scouring the hardtail and fat bike sections. The Pole Taiga, Taival and Kona Wozo need to be added to the hardtail and fat bike sections. They're the big options


I apologize. I had only looked at the FS MTb's.


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

alexbn921 said:


> I wanted to add to the conversation that the balance of most bikes starts to get screwed up around 490mm reach. It seems like every manufacturer wants the shortest possible rear chainstay length. Keeping the short rear and adding up to 100mm to the front makes it hard to get front end grip. Tallboy 3 form small to XXL is +100mm. I love the fit of my bike, but have to keep the front end lower than I want for weight distribution. If it had a 10mm longer rear, it would be perfect


That's a good point and Greg Minnaar agrees ;-). I started a thread about that here: http://forums.mtbr.com/clydesdales-tall-riders/handling-geometry-relative-frame-size-1058666.html


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

Kajjal said:


> While still available the camber 29ers in xxl are good sized bikes, reach 487 , stack 678 and comes with a 90mm stem. I am 6ft7 and it would fit taller than me.


I would say that with a reach of 487mm, it's not particularly well fit for tall riders. When average sized guys are riding bikes with 450-500mm reach, these days, I really can't see how we could recommend someone over 6' 7" get a bike with a reach of less than 490mm.

I call that the "Winnie the Pooh Efffect", we think it's ok, because we have always done it that way.

Can I ask you if you have ever tried any bikes that you thought were too big for you? 
I have not, and I am only 6"5". (Just had my first ride on my new bike with 520m reach).


----------



## Kajjal (Dec 14, 2013)

Tjaard said:


> I would say that with a reach of 487mm, it's not particularly well fit for tall riders. When average sized guys are riding bikes with 450-500mm reach, these days, I really can't see how we could recommend someone over 6' 7" get a bike with a reach of less than 490mm.
> 
> I call that the "Winnie the Pooh Efffect", we think it's ok, because we have always done it that way.
> 
> ...


You are suggesting the reach is 3mm too short 

Reach is only the frame measurement and stack has to be taken into account as well. Stems and riser bars will soon adjust the actual riding position. What stack, rise and length stem does your bike have ?


----------



## brawlo (Mar 13, 2012)

It's hard to just make recommendations on height alone. When I was fitted for my custom track race frame, I was put onto a bike built for a 6'6" rider (I am 6'5" myself). We had to run a 170mm equivalent stem to get that bike to fit me properly! I am arms and legs! So a rider that was an inch taller than me rides a fitted bike that was way too small for me!


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Kajjal said:


> You are suggesting the reach is 3mm too short
> 
> Reach is only the frame measurement and stack has to be taken into account as well. Stems and riser bars will soon adjust the actual riding position. What stack, rise and length stem does your bike have ?


He's suggesting that your bike is at least 43mm too short. 490 is where big bikes start, not what someone your size should ride. I'm only 6'4" and have 505 reach with a 50 to 60 stem depending on my setup. Body build and flexibility come into play alot with bike fit. My personal range is around 500mm with current geometry. Although the 520 large pole felt very small.
The main take away is I've only ever been one bike and said this is to big. A dirty sixxer!


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Kajjal said:


> While still available the camber 29ers in xxl are good sized bikes, reach 487 , stack 678 and comes with a 90mm stem. I am 6ft7 and it would fit taller than me.


Might be long enough with a 90mm stem but then you'd have a bike with a 90mm stem.


----------



## Nubster (May 15, 2009)

Tjaard said:


> Not really. reach in the 470's and stack around 610mm is hardly a "bike for the very tall"


Right. I'm 6'2" and on the XL Release 3 and it's perfect. So I'd expect it would be good for someone up to around 6'4" but taller than that it will start feeling cramped.


----------



## MaxMyNameisMax (Feb 8, 2017)

alexbn921 said:


> Awsome! Thanks.
> Now that I have my XXL Tallboy I will never buy a mountain bike with under 500mm of reach. Never had a bike that actually fit me before. I almost wish I had waited for the Hightower, but would only use the extra travel a couple times a year.[/QUOTE
> 
> How tall are you?


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

MaxMyNameisMax said:


> alexbn921 said:
> 
> 
> > Awsome! Thanks.
> ...


----------



## MaxMyNameisMax (Feb 8, 2017)

Tjaard said:


> 809mm on the BB-HT is good but not great. I'd say the true "tall person bikes" need have a reach well over 500mm.


What does this group consider a 'true tall person'? 6'5", 6'6", 6'8"?


----------



## Slyham (Jun 24, 2015)

MaxMyNameisMax said:


> What does this group consider a 'true tall person'? 6'5", 6'6", 6'8"?


I don't know if there is an official height, but I would say anyone who has ridden an XL bike and felt it was too small.

Regarding how much reach a bike should have for a 'true tall person' depends on the person. I'm 6'5" but with long legs. I'm more concerned about stack height than I am reach. I have a XXL 2018 Stumpjumper and a XL Honzo. The stumpy fits me better even though it has a shorter reach compared to the Honzo.


----------



## asollie (May 13, 2014)

Slyham said:


> Regarding how much reach a bike should have for a 'true tall person' depends on the person. I'm 6'5" but with long legs. I'm more concerned about stack height than I am reach.


Same here! 6'7" and my cycling inseam is something like 39.5 inches. People don't know I'm tall until I stand up... my torso is pretty average.


----------



## MaxMyNameisMax (Feb 8, 2017)

Slyham said:


> I don't know if there is an official height, but I would say anyone who has ridden an XL bike and felt it was too small.
> 
> Regarding how much reach a bike should have for a 'true tall person' depends on the person. I'm 6'5" but with long legs. I'm more concerned about stack height than I am reach. I have a XXL 2018 Stumpjumper and a XL Honzo. The stumpy fits me better even though it has a shorter reach compared to the Honzo.


Hmm. At 6'4" I think my inseam is pretty average. Going to measure this evening. I'm hoping to be happy with an XL Stumpjumper ST. Has a little longer reach than my current 26" bike but much higher stack.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

MaxMyNameisMax said:


> What does this group consider a 'true tall person'? 6'5", 6'6", 6'8"?


6'4" to 6'6" depending on build. Basically anyone that is too big for an XL bike.
If you have to use a band-aid like an extra long stem or push your seat back to fit.
If every time you buy a bike you ask for the biggest one they got.


----------



## MaxMyNameisMax (Feb 8, 2017)

So I am 6’4” with 36” riding inseam (top of book between legs). I this makes me think stack is more important than reach, or do I have it backwards?


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

Slyham said:


> I don't know if there is an official height, but I would say anyone who has ridden an XL bike and felt it was too small.


^pretty much this. If the largest "regular size" (i.e. the one that offered in all spec levels and models) is to small.

An other way to look at it is, if you have to start your (bike)shopping just by selecting the items available in your size. Or, which of the available items is the "least to small".

If you do any of the above, then for the purposes of this discussion, you are truly tall.

People who are "mainstream" sizes don't do this. They decide which model they want based on other things, then they decide which size is right. They might even be able to comfortably ride two different frame sizes!


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

Both are important. You need both. Just make sure that when you are comparing bikes, you "correct" for the stack differential when comparing the reach.

As the stack drops, the reach grows, at about 0.4x the stack decrease.
So if you are comparing two bikes, one with a reach of 500mm and stack of 650mm, and another with a reach of 520mm, and stack of 600mm, they will actually have the same reach and height to the bars, *once you add spacers* to set the (same) stem at the same height.

A quick way is to start by looking at the distance from the BB to the bars. Anything with a small number there, is not a very big bike.


----------



## Slyham (Jun 24, 2015)

No, I would be prioritizing stack as well. It doesn't mean you ignore reach, otherwise you may be in a too upright position.


MaxMyNameisMax said:


> So I am 6'4" with 36" riding inseam (top of book between legs). I this makes me think stack is more important than reach, or do I have it backwards?


----------



## Slyham (Jun 24, 2015)

Tjaard said:


> As the stack drops, the reach grows, at about 0.4x the stack decrease.
> So if you are comparing two bikes, one with a reach of 500mm and stack of 650mm, and another with a reach of 520mm, and stack of 600mm, they will actually have the same reach and height to the bars, once you add spacers to set the (same) stem at the same height.


While I agree that the length to the bottom bracket to the top of the head tube is the same the stack and reach numbers are different and the bar will be in a different place.

It's the hypotenuse of a triangle. The hypotenuse may be the same but the angles are different and it places the bars at a different spot.


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

MaxMyNameisMax said:


> What does this group consider a 'true tall person'? 6'5", 6'6", 6'8"?


If you're more used to the sound of bike shop staff sucking their teeth than them saying 'here's a couple of bikes you might like'.


----------



## MaxMyNameisMax (Feb 8, 2017)

Tjaard said:


> Both are important. You need both. Just make sure that when you are comparing bikes, you "correct" for the stack differential when comparing the reach.
> As the stack drops, the reach grows, at about 0.4x the stack decrease.
> So if you are comparing two bikes, one with a reach of 500mm and stack of 650mm, and another with a reach of 520mm, and stack of 600mm, they will actually have the same reach and height to the bars, once you add spacers to set the (same) stem at the same height.
> 
> A quick way is to start by looking at the distance from the BB to the bars. Anything with a small number there, is not a very big bike.


Well this is a bit confusing. Only way to tell now is to ride. I thought if one bike has a reach of 480 and stack of 649 and another has a reach of 505 and stack of 631 the first would be 1" shorter but higher by 3/4".


----------



## MaxMyNameisMax (Feb 8, 2017)

*Stock*



TooTallUK said:


> If you're more used to the sound of bike shop staff sucking their teeth than them saying 'here's a couple of bikes you might like'.


Based on my analysis and the numbers, the Trek is the winner with the Specialized and Tallboy falling in second. Unless I am missing something. I will def test ride the Trek and Specialized, even though I really love the look of the new Specialized I am going with the one I like to ride more. At least with the Specialized I can actually ride my trails. Not sure about the Trek. The XXL tallboy is hard to come by and almost impossible to test ride, none locally.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

*Spam*

Thinking of selling my bike so I can build up something new.

https://www.pinkbike.com/buysell/2389556/


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

*Stack and Reach interdependence*



MaxMyNameisMax said:


> I thought if one bike has a reach of 480 and stack of 649 and another has a reach of 505 and stack of 631 the first would be 1" shorter but higher by 3/4".


Sorry. It's not confusing, I'm just having a hard time explaining it, my apologies!
I will try a drawing.

But first some basic assumptions that I maybe didnt make clear:

-You are going to set up every bike with the same fit, i.o.w. The bars are going to be the same height and distance from the bottom bracket.
-So yes, the BIKE maybe longer, or taller, but you aren't mounting the bars straight onto the headset.
-So on the second bike you would add more spacers under the stem.

Here is a drawing. 
Do you see that even though one bike has longer reach and shorter stack on paper, they effectively have the same geometry: the only difference is that the head tube is shorter.

You would use the same stem length, same reach to the bars, and have the same front center etc. Everything would be identical, except on "bike 1" you'd have a stack of spacers and on "bike 2" you'd have a tall head tube.


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

Slyham said:


> While I agree that the *length from the bottom bracket to the top of the head* tube is the *same*,
> the stack and reach numbers are different and the *bar will be in a different place.*


No, both those statements are incorrect. 
The BB-HT distance will be *different*.
The bar will be in the *same place*, *in the example I cited above.*. That is, after you *add spacers* under the stem to *raise it to the same height*.

See my drawing.
In the drawing, the bar is (obviously) in the same place, yet stack and reach are different.
BB-HT distance is 16 cm on "bike 1" and 17 cm on "bike 2" (on my paper drawing)









Slyham said:


> It's the hypotenuse of a triangle. The hypotenuse may be the same but the angles are different and it places the bars at a different spot.


That is true. I was not claiming that all bikes with the same BB-HT distance wil fit the same, only that it's a quick way to see whether or not a bike is truly big, or only long.


----------



## Rafu (Oct 25, 2013)

I found this site very useful for bikes geometries comparison:
Stack and reach calculator


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

That's a nice one Rafu, since it includes the spacers and stem, which was the point I was trying to make.

It's to bad it asks for toptube length as an input, and gives reach as output. It would be a lot more useful the other way around.


----------



## Rafu (Oct 25, 2013)

Please note that 20mm of spacers on SJ and TB are only my assumption. Even if you put shorter stem, Fuel is still the winner here.


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

*Stack and Reach - interdependence*

In case you thought my drawing had curved lines or something (It didn't. I used a ruler).
Here is a screen grab from two hypothetical bikes I modeled in the calculator Rafu linked.

Notice that the stem is in the same place, since they are essentially the same bike, just with a taller head tube. 
Yet, the (frame)reach is longer on the red bike, even though the fit will be identical.


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

MaxMyNameisMax said:


> Only way to tell now is to ride.


Just watch out, make sure you set the saddle in the same fore-aft position. And raise or lower the grips to the same height above the BB.


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

I redid the Stumpy, Fuel EX, Tallboy compare, but this time I normalized for fit.

After all, that is the question we ask ourselves as tall buyers:

"How many spacers and how long of a stem would I need to run on this frame to get a decent fit"

The answer in this case is that to get the bar in the same place, on the:


Stumpy XL, you'd have 0 mm spacers, and a 66mm stem
Fuel EX XXL, you'd have 14 mm spacers and a 40mm stem
Tallboy XXL, you'd have 20 mm spacers and 57mm stem.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Great tool to compare stem and stack changes.

Stem Comparison Tool | yojimg.net


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Rafu said:


> I found this site very useful for bikes geometries comparison:
> Stack and reach calculator


FYI your tallboy reach is off by 10mm

here we go. something is fishy with the fuel geo chart.
fuel XXL is 20mm taller and 11mm longer than the tallboy at bar height.

edited


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

alexbn921 said:


> Great tool to compare stem and stack changes.
> 
> Stem Comparison Tool | yojimg.net


That's a great tool Alex. I have used his trail calculator a lot. 
In the past, when we were using super long stems, they made a huge difference. These days, which shorter stems, stem length vs angle makes less of a difference.


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

alexbn921 said:


> Also the BB drop makes a big difference in seat -> bar height.


Nope, it doesn't make a difference. Since stack is measured from the BB, a lower BB with the same stack will feel the same. (But the actual headtube will be shorter)

That's the whole point of using stack and reach: they are independent of wheel size, BB drop, headtube length, seattube angle and length and all those other things we used to use for fitting bikes.


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

Alex, I think you have the Fuel EX in Xl and the SC Tallboy in XXL. Rafu was using the Fuel EX in XXL(23”) as wel.


----------



## Kajjal (Dec 14, 2013)

Tjaard said:


> Nope, it doesn't make a difference. Since stack is measured from the BB, a lower BB with the same stack will feel the same. (But the actual headtube will be shorter)
> 
> That's the whole point of using stack and reach: they are independent of wheel size, BB drop, headtube length, seattube angle and length and all those other things we used to use for fitting bikes.


This is good advice and why I use reach and stack as the starting point to size and compare bikes. You also have to add in the stem length / rise to your estimates to get a better idea of the fit.


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

Kajjal said:


> You also have to add in the stem length / rise to your estimates to get a better idea of the fit.


I hope anyone considering buying a decent MTB would not limit themselves to the stock stem, but would buy the stem that offered the fit/handling they were looking for.


----------



## gratulin (Jun 8, 2018)

Hi, I'd like to bump this thread with a question regarding stack, headtube length, spacers and bar rise. 

Comparing a Stumpjumper XL with stack of 656mm to a Scott Genius XL with 628mm stack. I've only ridden the Stumpy and it feels too short for me (470 reach) but rides great due to stack height. Genius is better reach at 499 but the low stack worries me. Why did Scott make the bike with such low stack? Is it that they compensate with more spacers and rise in the bar?

I want a bike with 499mm reach and 656mm stack!


----------



## alexdi (Jun 25, 2016)

More bikes for anyone who wants to play with data:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZvvIZXYHHewvukFuUxeTHHrN2v9fbe3CqAekwqdv9b4/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## Slyham (Jun 24, 2015)

gratulin said:


> Hi, I'd like to bump this thread with a question regarding stack, headtube length, spacers and bar rise.
> 
> Comparing a Stumpjumper XL with stack of 656mm to a Scott Genius XL with 628mm stack. I've only ridden the Stumpy and it feels too short for me (470 reach) but rides great due to stack height. Genius is better reach at 499 but the low stack worries me. Why did Scott make the bike with such low stack? Is it that they compensate with more spacers and rise in the bar?
> 
> I want a bike with 499mm reach and 656mm stack!


The XXL Santa Cruz Hightower and Hightower LT are closer to what you are looking for.

So is the XXL Rocky Mountain Element if you are looking for a XC bike.


----------



## Slyham (Jun 24, 2015)

Also the XXL Trek Fuel EX 8.


----------



## gratulin (Jun 8, 2018)

Slyham said:


> Also the XXL Trek Fuel EX 8.


Thanks. Wish you hadn't mentioned the Hightower however. It is around 10 grand over here


----------



## Slyham (Jun 24, 2015)

gratulin said:


> Thanks. Wish you hadn't mentioned the Hightower however. It is around 10 grand over here


Yeah, it's out of my price range as well.


----------



## gratulin (Jun 8, 2018)

I'm also trying to understand the relationship between reach and stack. Long+Low versus Short+High. I've been after Long+High but perhaps that just equals cumbersome? Hard to know without riding all options.

PS. Most riders always have the seat level or below the bar level. Tall riders have the seat above the bar level. So seat height from BB is 800mm compared to typical stack around 620mm to 660mm. Hence my focus on High stack.


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

Slyham said:


> Yeah, it's out of my price range as well.


Are you looking at the 'C' version? Those are a fair bit less than the 'CC' version. Unfortunately SAnta Cruz only offers the XXL size in carbon, not in alloy, so yes, you do have to commit to the carbon price point.


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

gratulin said:


> I'm also trying to understand the relationship between reach and stack. Long+Low versus Short+High. I've been after Long+High but perhaps that just equals cumbersome?


Yes and yes.

As tall riders we do need to look for bikes that are both long and high. *Longer and higher than normal* that is.

Yes, long and high handlebar set up is cumbersome.
Long and High for *your body* that is.
It's just unlikely that tall riders ever end up with a bike that is set-up too long and high for their body. Just like it's unlikely that small riders end up with a bike set up to short and low for their body.


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

gratulin said:


> Hi, I'd like to bump this thread with a question regarding stack, headtube length, spacers and bar rise.
> 
> Comparing a Stumpjumper XL with stack of 656mm to a Scott Genius XL with 628mm stack. I've only ridden the Stumpy and it feels too short for me (470 reach) but rides great due to stack height. Genius is better reach at 499 but the low stack worries me. Why did Scott make the bike with such low stack? Is it that they compensate with more spacers and rise in the bar?
> 
> I want a bike with 499mm reach and 656mm stack!


It's usually fairly doable with spacers and riser bars to raise your grips. You can use the calculator listed above to compare the effective reach and stack of those two bikes. But for a quick idea, you loose abut 1/4 of reach from the lower stack.
So if you have the bar at the same height, the Scott will feel as if it has a reach of 492, so still significantly longer than the Speci.


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

gratulin said:


> Tall riders have the seat above the bar level. So seat height from BB is 800mm compared to typical stack around 620mm to 660mm. Hence my focus on High stack.


Those longer crank arms come in to help here.


----------



## MaxMyNameisMax (Feb 8, 2017)

Tjaard said:


> I redid the Stumpy, Fuel EX, Tallboy compare, but this time I normalized for fit.
> 
> After all, that is the question we ask ourselves as tall buyers:
> 
> ...


This assumes the fork steerer tube is long enough for the 20mm and 14mm spacers! Many won't be long enough.


----------



## forealz (Dec 12, 2016)

Tjaard said:


> Yes and yes.
> 
> As tall riders we do need to look for bikes that are both long and high. *Longer and higher than normal* that is.
> 
> ...


What about if you are tall, but have short legs?

I've been thinking of playing with my XXL Santa Cruz Hightower LT.

Currently have a 50mm stem flipped pointing down at the top of the my spacer stack with 35mm riser bars.

My lower back has been bugging me and when in the standing or attack position, i feel Like im pulling back on the handlebars during downhills rather than being centered over them.

Wondering if I should flip the stem so it's +5 rise

I don't know enough about geometry though and usually just get confused...


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

forealz said:


> What about if you are tall, but have short legs?
> 
> Currently have a 50mm stem flipped pointing down at the top of the my spacer stack with 35mm riser bars.
> 
> ...


Hard to say from a distance, most likely guess, the distance from pedals to the grips is to far, so the cockpit needs to be either shorter or lower(or both).

But either lowering it more(spacers on top), or raising it more (stem flipped up) are cheap and easy things to try.

A shorter stem could also be interesting, but of course requires buying or borrowing a short stem.


----------



## Stickman181 (Aug 27, 2018)

I'm 6'3" and have just test ridden the Trek Remedy 8 27.5 XL and the Stumpjumper Comp Carbon 29 XL. The Stumpy has 470mm reach and 656mm stack. The Remedy 475 reach and 610 stack. The Remedy felt very short and I felt very 'over the front', so much so, i constantly felt like i couldn't push into turns any where near as quick as the stumpy, which felt absolutely comfortable, and I could just pitch it at anything with complete confidence.

I now think, that the Stack dimension is at play here, given that the stack is 46mm lower on the trek than the Stumpy. 

This said, the numbers on the Trek Slash 29, is much better, with the same 475 reach, but 635mm stack, so 25mm higher than the Remedy. One would think riser bars should add another 10mm and get me somewhere near the comfort of the Stumpy, but to be honest, the STumpy just fit off the bat.

Great geo for tall guys the Stumpy 29. Nice bike too, pitty it doesn't have the same travel as the remedy/slash, and it's really down on spec compared to the Trek's.


----------



## 4runn (Nov 30, 2018)

Any clydes have experience with a Kona Honzo ST? I'm 6'7" with a 36" inseam considering this bike.

2019 Kona Honzo ST in XL
top tube length: 693 mm
reach: 510 mm
stack: 651 mm


----------



## rian4224 (Jul 31, 2017)

I’m your height and inseam and I wish I had that geo on my current hardtail. Wish I would have tried a Honzo. I think that’s about as good as you’re going to find as far as fit in the stack and reach department.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

rian4224 said:


> I'm your height and inseam and I wish I had that geo on my current hardtail. Wish I would have tried a Honzo. I think that's about as good as you're going to find as far as fit in the stack and reach department.


Check this out

510 reach 666 stack and 697 top tube

KONA BIKES | MTB | FATBIKE | Wozo


----------



## 4runn (Nov 30, 2018)

rian4224 said:


> I'm your height and inseam and I wish I had that geo on my current hardtail. Wish I would have tried a Honzo. I think that's about as good as you're going to find as far as fit in the stack and reach department.


I went for it, and ordered a 2019 Kona Honzo ST frame in XL. Never built a bike before, but should be a fun project.


----------



## rian4224 (Jul 31, 2017)

Awesome...congrats. I look forward to seeing some pics of the build and hearing how it rides.

I checked out that Wozo fat bike...very tempting!


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

rian4224 said:


> Awesome...congrats. I look forward to seeing some pics of the build and hearing how it rides.
> 
> I checked out that Wozo fat bike...very tempting!


Being big and heavy. I like the bike for all the combinations you can come up with. Tire sizes etc. never ridden it but geo looks promising. 68.5" hta is probably better for the fat market. But then you can run a taller front to slacken it out. Sliding drop outs single speed, adjustable cs length and on and on.


----------



## asollie (May 13, 2014)

Added the Wozo and a few other bikes to the spreadsheet. Sorry I've gotten so far behind on the list!


----------



## rian4224 (Jul 31, 2017)

asollie said:


> Added the Wozo and a few other bikes to the spreadsheet. Sorry I've gotten so far behind on the list!


Thanks for all the work you do for this list...it's appreciated and I check it all the time to try and keep up with updated geometry for bikes that us big guys can actually fit on (kind of). This list is an invaluable resource.

The Wozo geo is surprisingly tall person friendly...hope to see more of this long reach/high stack trend with some full sus bikes in the near future...


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2019)

Has anyone compiled such a wealth of reach/stack bike dimensions for us average height riders? Some of us are also looking for tall stack bikes.


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

@Asollie, can you update the tableau sheet? 
I see the new Santa Cruz Mega Tower XXL comes in at 8th biggest in the full suspension bikes, and it has longer chain stays (with the chip flipped!)


----------



## asollie (May 13, 2014)

Tjaard said:


> @Asollie, can you update the tableau sheet?
> I see the new Santa Cruz Mega Tower XXL comes in at 8th biggest in the full suspension bikes, and it has longer chain stays (with the chip flipped!)


Already done! If you're looking at Carbon Full Squish bikes, it is in a league of its own.

https://public.tableau.com/profile/alexander.sollie#!/vizhome/BikeAnalysis_0/StackandReach


----------



## asollie (May 13, 2014)

Even the Megatower XL is as big as some of the previous biggest bikes out there. The Ibis Ripmo XL and the Orbea Rallon XL were my top two contenders for a new bike until the Megatower XXL, and the Megatower XL is basically the same size as those two.

*If you're over 6'4", buy a Megatower XXL immediately to reward Santa Cruz for being so considerate. *


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

asollie said:


> Even the Megatower XL is as big as some of the previous biggest bikes out there. The Ibis Ripmo XL and the Orbea Rallon XL were my top two contenders for a new bike until the Megatower XXL, and the Megatower XL is basically the same size as those two.
> 
> *If you're over 6'4", buy a Megatower XXL immediately to reward Santa Cruz for being so considerate. *


:thumbsup:

What I really like, is that not only does it have good stack and reach, but it also has decent chainstay length.
I do wish the chainstays were even longer though. And a steeper seat tube.
The V10 XL 29er has a front to rear ratio of 2.88, while the Mega in XXL has a front to rear ratio of 2.94. (Both in long settings).

My personal experience is that a ratio of 2.9 and more is less than ideal for front traction. This is consistent with what SC is doing with the V10, coming in well below that. In fact, the original XXL V10 had a 2.83 ratio*

*https://www.pinkbike.com/news/behind-the-bike-developing-the-xxl-santa-cruz-v10-2016.html

Personally I am hoping very hard that they will be redoing the Hightower, and bringing it to market with similar stack, reach and chainstays as the Megatower, but asteeper head angle(66.5 please). That would suit my terrain better and it would bring the weight balance better into line.


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to asollie again.


----------



## asollie (May 13, 2014)

Tjaard said:


> Personally I am hoping very hard that they will be redoing the Hightower, and bringing it to market with similar stack, reach and chainstays as the Megatower, but a steeper head angle(66.5 please). That would suit my terrain better and it would bring the weight balance better into line.


That sounds like a perfect bike for me too. Steep seat tube angles are critical for keeping your weight in the right place without having crazy-long chainstays.


----------



## SiO2 (Jul 4, 2007)

x post from Santacruz Hightower vs Megatower thread

As I was "kissing my steer tube" trying to keep the front end down doing steep techy climbs on my XXL Hightower yesterday, I kept thinking how nice the XXL Megatower would be with its 76 deg STA and adjustable chain stay. At 6'5 with a 36" inseam the XXL HT has been a godsend but far from perfect. The short chain stays and the slack actual STA sits me right over the rear axle. 
View attachment 1243635


I am amazed and delighted that Santacruz built the XXL HT for what has to be a very small market. XS bikes can be sold to small men, women and teens. XXL bikes are only marketable to us freaky tall guys. Then they go a build the XXL MT which is a full size bigger than the XXL HT. Awesome! Luckily the MT is too much bike for my local trails, otherwise I'd be lobbying my wife that Santacruz is finally building a bike that fits me. The only problem is that I used that same argument when the XL HT came out and then again with the XXL HT. My kids even gave me grief. I really hope SC releases a new XXL HT. Not sure how I'll sell it to my wife (and kids) though.


----------



## asollie (May 13, 2014)

SiO2 said:


> The only problem is that I used that same argument when the XL HT came out and then again with the XXL HT. My kids even gave me grief. I really hope SC releases a new XXL HT. Not sure how I'll sell it to my wife (and kids) though.


I had a coworker who only bought black bikes in the hope that his wife wouldn't notice when he got a new one.


----------



## reamer41 (Mar 26, 2007)

asollie said:


> I had a coworker who only bought black bikes in the hope that his wife wouldn't notice when he got a new one.


lol . That's great!


----------



## Tytlynz (Apr 29, 2015)

Great stuff here. Looking at the geometry on the new Jeffsy cf in xxl. Looks similar to the 23 in trek fuel ex 8. I’m 6’7 36 in inseam and long arms. Liked the look of the Jeffsy spec as well. Thoughts?

edit: 36 in inseam


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

Tytlynz said:


> Great stuff here. Looking at the geometry on the new Jeffsy cf in xxl. Looks similar to the 23 in trek fuel ex 8. I'm 6'7 36 in inseam and long arms. Thoughts?


That pretty much describes my body size/proportion and I sold my 23" Fuel....
part of my reasoning was wanting more trail and longer rear center, both of which the YT offers.
However, I also always felt that the Fuel EX 23" was still on the small side.

So my advice would be to think hard whether you really want to get a new bike, that is still (maybe) a bit too small.
I would suggest looking at the new Santacruz Megatower XXL, very similar ihn many aspects, and much bigger. Or the Bird Aeris AM9 XL if you'd rather have alloy than carbon.

Either way, go with a short offset fork.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Tjaard said:


> Either way, go with a short offset fork.


This 1000%. Short offset forks make a noticeable difference in weight distribution and front end grip at our size. Shorter the better! 
I encourage guys to wait for the new hightower to come out in the next 6 or so months. It will be a much better trail bike than the megatower or yt.


----------



## Tytlynz (Apr 29, 2015)

Thanks @tjaard and @alexbn921. So what range offset should I be looking at? And other than the theoretical new HT what other bikes would be worth a look? Been riding a 2014 Cdale ATrail SL ht and it is on its second frame. I am riding more challenging terrain though I travel to get there, more often and am looking to upgrade soon. I may have to replace the bb on my current bike as it is creaking like no tomorrow and wanted to save on any money being put into it towards an upgrade. Plus the Trek sale kicks off tomorrow. At my size, I doubt any bike will truly fit but such are the cards I am dealt. I am 265lbs btw and trying to get down to 245 by the end of the spring. Thanks again.


----------



## xler8 (Oct 22, 2015)

Any vertically gifted riders have a Mondraker which could comment on the way they fit?


----------



## Derkall (May 13, 2019)

Great info here, thanks for the outstanding work! 

Just want to run this by here.... I'm 6'5", but most of my length is in the legs (about 38" inseam doing the book against the wall measurement) and + ape index. 

I'm currently on an xxl 2012 Rockhopper 29. Looking at new bikes I'm guessing I should be looking at stack height in particular? Many bike shops say "yeah that will fit" but sometimes I get the feeling that they are just trying to move product. I would be looking for a trail type bike...120 to 140.... any pointers ?


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

Derkall said:


> Great info here, thanks for the outstanding work!
> 
> Just want to run this by here.... I'm 6'5", but most of my length is in the legs (about 38" inseam doing the book against the wall measurement) and + ape index.
> 
> I'm currently on an xxl 2012 Rockhopper 29. Looking at new bikes I'm guessing I should be looking at stack height in particular? Many bike shops say "yeah that will fit" but sometimes I get the feeling that they are just trying to move product. I would be looking for a trail type bike...120 to 140.... any pointers ?


You need both high stack and long reach, See the posts above here for discussion.

Also, here is my basic guide:
https://forums.mtbr.com/clydesdales-tall-riders/picking-bike-tall-riders-1101669.html


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Tjaard said:


> :thumbsup:
> 
> Personally I am hoping very hard that they will be redoing the Hightower, and bringing it to market with similar stack, reach and chainstays as the Megatower, but asteeper head angle(66.5 please). That would suit my terrain better and it would bring the weight balance better into line.


Yes i second that. I didnt buy a hightower as the stack was too low and chainstays too short. I bought an 18 xxl stumpy 29er

Fyi. Specialized lied on the 2018 29er ettl length. Its about 40mm shorter on my frame. But correct reach and stack. i measured it out carefully. climbs okay!


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

alexbn921 said:


> Great tool to compare stem and stack changes.
> 
> Stem Comparison Tool | yojimg.net


Nice calculator.

anyone made a tool that factors in the fork offset and then shows the steering flop that occurs when sweeping the bars with diff stem angle and length combos


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Fuse6F said:


> Nice calculator.
> 
> anyone made a tool that factors in the fork offset and then shows the steering flop that occurs when sweeping the bars with diff stem angle and length combos


Yep
Flop doesn't change with different bar/stem combos.

Bicycle Trail Calculator | yojimg.net


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Meh


----------



## Pitch (Aug 9, 2008)

I was super excited about a Christmas sale that I stumbled upon for Nicolai bikes. The Saturn 14 looks mighty tasty (despite low stack heights) in an XXL. But, the German VAT (value added tax- 327 Euro)and shipping (225 Euro) add about $600 to the price of a frame! That quickly curbed my enthusiasm. The frame sale knocks about 400 Euro off the price of a frame. Priced at 2049 Euro through the end of the year.

I had been excited due to the relatively good current USD to Euro exchange rates. Ahh well... at least I still like my current ride (3xl Ventana Wolfram).


----------



## brawlo (Mar 13, 2012)

Pitch said:


> I was super excited about a Christmas sale that I stumbled upon for Nicolai bikes. The Saturn 14 looks mighty tasty (despite low stack heights) in an XXL. But, the German VAT (value added tax- 327 Euro)and shipping (225 Euro) add about $600 to the price of a frame! That quickly curbed my enthusiasm. The frame sale knocks about 400 Euro off the price of a frame. Priced at 2049 Euro through the end of the year.
> 
> I had been excited due to the relatively good current USD to Euro exchange rates. Ahh well... at least I still like my current ride (3xl Ventana Wolfram).


Assuming you're US based, you won't be stung with VAT, just your US import duties if any


----------



## yogiprophet (Jan 9, 2006)

alexbn921 said:


> Yep
> Flop doesn't change with different bar/stem combos.
> 
> Bicycle Trail Calculator | yojimg.net


 The added flop the current bikes have now is a huge part of the push for longer bars - to give you more torque. Also, I feel like a shorter stem makes flop less pronounced.


----------

