# Do You Size Up or Down?



## ejewels (Jul 16, 2009)

Bikes seem to be longer and slacker than ever before. If in between sizes or even as a preference... do you size up or down?

10 years ago, a large at my 5'9.5" frame would seem a little too big. But now it feels right.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

Down if I have to make a choice because I prefer maneuverability over stability. YMMV


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

depends on the bike in question, and intended usage. if you need quick and nimble, size down. if you need stability at high speeds, then size up. The difference in most sizes can be compensated for with <20mm stem change, if you are truly between sizes. I typically size up, and get 10mm shorter stem. That usually works for me. If I was looking at a bike that came with a 35mm stem, then I might have to rethink.


----------



## VTSession (Aug 18, 2005)

I'm always between L and XL and I will never ride an XL bike. A bike that is a bit too small is better than a bike that is too big.


----------



## ejewels (Jul 16, 2009)

Thanks guys. Bike in question is the Fuel EX, 2018. The only real difference from a 18.5 to a 19.5 is 1.5cm in reach and wheelbase. Both have same stack and standover.


----------



## bingemtbr (Apr 1, 2004)

30 yrs ago, I'd size down. More of a BMX mentality at the time; I was riding a medium Zaskar and it was nice to be able to "throw it around" on the trail and easier to get behind the saddle in DH sketchy stuff. 

Today, I'd prefer to get the correct size from the get-go. If thats impractical, I'd keep looking. I only say this because the correct size makes a HUGE difference. I've suffered through knee pain, neck injuries (slipped C5/C7), back issues (herniated T1), numb hands/feet, and all that went away once I was on the correct bike and able to maintain the correct posture.


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

Depends on the bike and bike manufacturer. I tend to size up now, mainly because i feel cramped on smaller sizes. 

Also, I feel much more stable at speed and can still jump and maneuver a bigger bike.


----------



## Pisgah (Feb 24, 2006)

My mantra has been, it's easier to build a bike up, than down. That's just my opinion. No matter what be careful with seatpost/seat tube lengths. This is especially true with droppers.


----------



## ejewels (Jul 16, 2009)

bingemtbr said:


> 30 yrs ago, I'd size down. More of a BMX mentality at the time; I was riding a medium Zaskar and it was nice to be able to "throw it around" on the trail and easier to get behind the saddle in DH sketchy stuff.
> 
> Today, I'd prefer to get the correct size from the get-go. If thats impractical, I'd keep looking. I only say this because the correct size makes a HUGE difference. I've suffered through knee pain, neck injuries (slipped C5/C7), back issues (herniated T1), numb hands/feet, and all that went away once I was on the correct bike and able to maintain the correct posture.


Well thats the thing. There really isn't a "right size" when in between sizes. 18.5 is a tad small in some areas, and the 19.5 a tad big in some.


----------



## ejewels (Jul 16, 2009)

Pisgah said:


> My mantra has been, it's easier to build a bike up, than down. That's just my opinion. No matter what be careful with seatpost/seat tube lengths. This is especially true with droppers.


Yeah the thing with the fuel, is the only real difference besides more seat tube length ( i have long legs so not an issue) is the reach by 1.5cm.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

It just depends, tbh.



bingemtbr said:


> Today, I'd prefer to get the correct size from the get-go. If thats impractical, I'd keep looking. I only say this because the correct size makes a HUGE difference. I've suffered through knee pain, neck injuries (slipped C5/C7), back issues (herniated T1), numb hands/feet, and all that went away once I was on the correct bike and able to maintain the correct posture.


I tend to follow this advice, even though I'm not really in-between sizes. Every bike I've been most comfortable on has been a medium frame. I've ridden enough different ones that I can go into some detail on frame dimensions, but that's neither here nor there for this discussion. In Santa Cruz frames, I simply cannot ride a medium. The reach is too short for me, so to get the correct reach, I need to go to a large. Which isn't a problem by itself, but it screws up other dimensions. Namely, the seat tube. With the ubiquitous dropper posts, to find a dropper that fits on a large Santa Cruz, I'd have to run one far shorter than I want. So Santa Cruz as a brand is just out of the equation for me. They don't quite fit me right, simply enough.

It can be very challenging to find a mass manufactured frame in the right size when your body dimensions are a bit outside of what's considered the "norm" or "average" for your height. A lot of pretty tall guys have torsos no longer than mine, yet they've got crazy long legs. Sometimes, much of that length is just in the femur, so they wind up not being very proportional. Totally makes bike fitting a pain in the ass. Or take my wife, who based on her height, you might think she's best served on a small frame size. But her arms are so short that with modern long reach frames, she is simply far too stretched. So she HAS to get an extra small frame. She's been to shops where the sales guys swear on their lives that she should be riding small frames (most manufacturers don't make extra smalls, so they have nothing to sell her if she holds out for an XS), and at this point, that's our sign to just walk out the door.

It might be worth looking at semi-custom or full custom frames. Guerrilla Gravity used to do semi custom sizing on their metal frames. But now that they've moved all their alu frames over completely to their new carbon mfg process, I have a hard time seeing them doing that now. Pretty sure they'll still do it on the Pedalhead hardtail, though. I'm sure some other smaller mfrs still offer semi-custom, but I'm not sure which ones. And there are a ton of people doing full custom work, but that requires both the budget and a lot of patience.


----------



## ejewels (Jul 16, 2009)

Thanks for the input. I think the custom thing is out of the equation at this point... but def would be cool. Its also a MTB, so not sure how critical the fit needs to be. And yeah, I do have long femurs. I've always ridden mediums but on the fuel I used to have, I felt like I was gonna go OTB a lot. Since I have a +2 ape as well, I can ride the larges... just struggle sometimes with the wheelbase and weight distribution.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

d365 said:


> depends on the bike in question, and intended usage. if you need quick and nimble, size down. if you need stability at high speeds, then size up. The difference in most sizes can be compensated for with <20mm stem change, if you are truly between sizes. I typically size up, and get 10mm shorter stem. That usually works for me. If I was looking at a bike that came with a 35mm stem, then I might have to rethink.





stripes said:


> Depends on the bike and bike manufacturer. I tend to size up now, mainly because i feel cramped on smaller sizes.
> 
> Also, I feel much more stable at speed and can still jump and maneuver a bigger bike.


These comments mirror my feelings.

Personally I'm more comfortable taking to the air on a bike with a longer wheelbase. If I launch wonky, I can land front-heavy without going over the bars. These days I enjoy taking to the air more and more.
=sParty


----------



## ejewels (Jul 16, 2009)

Sparticus said:


> These comments mirror my feelings.
> 
> Personally I'm more comfortable taking to the air on a bike with a longer wheelbase. If I launch wonky, I can land front-heavy without going over the bars. These days I enjoy taking to the air more and more.
> =sParty


Yeah it seems some say the smaller more nimble bike is better in the air.. but thats probably if you're doing tricks, etc. I always thought the larger bike was more stable off drops and some jumps.


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

I size up because I feel it makes the bike quicker and more nimble. I think sizing down for that is flawed. You end up with a silly long stem, a setback post and an awkward position on the bike that actually makes it harder to handle.

For my first FS bike, the shop conned me into a small. It had a 21.5 inch top tube and I needed a 24.0. It was cramped, I crashed a lot, it handled poorly and I ended up selling it for a loss.

My current bike is enormous in comparison, both in TT length and wheelbase. Its also 5 degrees slacker up front. Handles SO much better.

I raced BMX for years. People use that to get into a too-small bike, but its a very different sport and the bikes do not size the same.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

ejewels said:


> Yeah it seems some say the smaller more nimble bike is better in the air.. but thats probably if you're doing tricks, etc. I always thought the larger bike was more stable off drops and some jumps.


Depends what you're doing with it in the air.

Yes, a larger bike will be more stable. But that also means it'll be harder to flick around and do tricks. It's all part of it. If you're just learning about getting air, that's probably a good thing. But if you want to progress to tricks and such, that extra stability is likely to hold you back.

Me? I've always been intimidated by air (and with a healthy fear of heights), so a bike that's stable in the air actually helps me stay comfortable with it to a point. And so I get more air. Bigger drops and such mostly. I don't really hit kickers, gaps, or jump lines, but if a trail has little rollable jumps or tables, I'll get a little air on them instead of rolling them.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

ejewels said:


> Yeah it seems some say the smaller more nimble bike is better in the air.. but thats probably if you're doing tricks, etc. I always thought the larger bike was more stable off drops and some jumps.


Yeah. I wonder if individual body dimensions come into play on this, too. For example, based on many anecdotal comments here on MTBR, I've begun to develop the belief that taller riders might prefer steep STAs more than shorter riders. I don't know, it's a potential theory.

Same might be true for bike sizing. I'm 6'2" with a +3" wingspan. I'm more comfortable on a longer bike, especially if the frame has a BB height that's reasonable (ie: not ridiculously low). Wonder: if my COG was substantially lower, perhaps I wouldn't appreciate the longer wheelbase as much.

Dunno. I'm only one height, not likely to change.
=sParty


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

In the 90s and early 2000s, everyone always recommended to downsize. The larger sizes often meant goofy high top tubes and crazy long head tubes, and 100mm was a crazy-short stem and would never come on a bike as OEM.

Now, things are much different. If you are truly in between, you need to think about where you will spend the most time, even on an Enduro bike, unless you only shuttle, you are going to spend the vast majority of the time not-descending, and feeling cramped will get old real fast when your bike is too small. The only way is even consider downsizing these days is for a full on DH rig. You simply don’t take a big hit in handling like you used to back in the day on 99.9% of bikes out there when you are in between and upsize.

Unfortunately, this old idea seems to persist, and in most cases, for no good reason. The seatpost is a good indicator of too small of a frame, and even if you have the min insert depth, all that means is that you probably won’t break the post, putting a longer lever on the frame simply increases the chances of breaking it. Ask me how I know...


----------



## bingemtbr (Apr 1, 2004)

ejewels said:


> Well thats the thing. There really isn't a "right size" when in between sizes. 18.5 is a tad small in some areas, and the 19.5 a tad big in some.


Which is why I ride a custom frame. XL tt length with a L standover height. A few other tweeks.


----------



## ejewels (Jul 16, 2009)

Yeah I also read that "why we're riding bikes too small for us" article which was a good read.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

*Have Y oU

 sized down ?
*


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

Shorter stem good, longer stem bad.

Not true for everyone, but for my purposes (hucking) longer with a shorter stem is always better than shorter with a longer stem.


----------



## ejewels (Jul 16, 2009)

right but then you have a longer wheelbase, front center and higher seat tube... well, mostly. Guess some don't care about that with hucking?


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

ejewels said:


> right but then you have a longer wheelbase, front center and higher seat tube... well, mostly. Guess some don't care about that with hucking?


Longer wheel base is a good thing for rowdy riding, more stable. Not sure about the other two, I don't get too crazy into geo just ride what feels good. How can a seat tube be higher? You mean top tube?

Should have said I've ridden 19.5s for most of my life, but recently started riding 21.5s and much prefer them.


----------



## ejewels (Jul 16, 2009)

Sorry yeah I meant the seat tube of the frame... sometimes a larger size has a higher seat tube making it harder for people to run larger droppers.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

ejewels said:


> Sorry yeah I meant the seat tube of the frame... sometimes a larger size has a higher seat tube making it harder for people to run larger droppers.


I think in some respects, riders need to understand and accept that not everyone can fit a 170mm dropper. This is more or less the issue I have with Santa Cruz bikes in the size that fits my upper body correctly. A dropper post is an awful expensive item to have to swap out for fit. Some shops might let you do a swap for no cost just to get the right size, but not all of them are going to do that. As such, I'm not going to mess with it. If I try a bike and the dropper won't fit me, I'm simply not going to buy the bike as a complete. I MIGHT buy it as a frame if I can fit an acceptable length dropper. For me, less than 125mm is a nonstarter.

I have a 125mm dropper in one bike now. Gives me what I need. My new bike that I'm building now has a touch more room to work with, but not a ton. I am able to squeeze a 150mm Oneup dropper into it if I shorten the drop to about 140mm or so. It would take a VERY specific frame for me to fit a 170mm dropper, and it's possible I wouldn't like how it rode because of what would need to be done to make that dropper fit. But sometimes these dropper fitments are specific to certain posts. There was a Fox Transfer in a raffle locally, and I checked the fitment to see if it would be worthwhile for me to enter it. For the same frame I'm able to squeeze a 150mm Oneup, I could only fit a 100mm Fox Transfer. My wife, who rides a frame 2 sizes smaller than I do, uses a 100mm dropper.

When it comes to droppers, you need to measure measure measure. And measure measure measure again to make sure you're getting the right size for your frame and for your body's dimensions.


----------



## ejewels (Jul 16, 2009)

Harold said:


> I think in some respects, riders need to understand and accept that not everyone can fit a 170mm dropper. This is more or less the issue I have with Santa Cruz bikes in the size that fits my upper body correctly. A dropper post is an awful expensive item to have to swap out for fit. Some shops might let you do a swap for no cost just to get the right size, but not all of them are going to do that. As such, I'm not going to mess with it. If I try a bike and the dropper won't fit me, I'm simply not going to buy the bike as a complete. I MIGHT buy it as a frame if I can fit an acceptable length dropper. For me, less than 125mm is a nonstarter.
> 
> I have a 125mm dropper in one bike now. Gives me what I need. My new bike that I'm building now has a touch more room to work with, but not a ton. I am able to squeeze a 150mm Oneup dropper into it if I shorten the drop to about 140mm or so. It would take a VERY specific frame for me to fit a 170mm dropper, and it's possible I wouldn't like how it rode because of what would need to be done to make that dropper fit. But sometimes these dropper fitments are specific to certain posts. There was a Fox Transfer in a raffle locally, and I checked the fitment to see if it would be worthwhile for me to enter it. For the same frame I'm able to squeeze a 150mm Oneup, I could only fit a 100mm Fox Transfer. My wife, who rides a frame 2 sizes smaller than I do, uses a 100mm dropper.
> 
> When it comes to droppers, you need to measure measure measure. And measure measure measure again to make sure you're getting the right size for your frame and for your body's dimensions.


Good points. So are you technically on a bike thats too big per the mfg's size charts?


----------



## splitendz (Nov 13, 2015)

I go the smaller route. I have Fuels in 18.5 & 17.5. With sizing that close, you can set up either bike to fit you with stem & seat protrusion. I just like lighter weight and feel of shorter frame.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

ejewels said:


> Good points. So are you technically on a bike thats too big per the mfg's size charts?


Mfg size charts are ****.

Salsa says I am at the borderline between a small and a medium. Under absolutely zero circumstances is a small anywhere close to the right size for my body.

I didn't even look at the size charts when shopping for my Guerrilla Gravity Pedalhead. I looked at frame geometry charts, and the medium was the closest to what I like. I got to demo one, and it felt "right" so I still don't know what the mfr recommends.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Harold said:


> I think in some respects, riders need to understand and accept that not everyone can fit a 170mm dropper.


True and tragic IMO, Harold.

But then I suppose the shorter a rider is, the shorter their dropper needs to be.

In my case I'm tall and employ a 185mm dropper -- the longest that'll fit my 36" inseam in my size XL frame. There have been times when I'm riding super steep tech terrain with my seat all the way down but I hit the dropper lever in an effort to make it go even lower.

Ha! That doesn't work. 

I have a 150mm dropper on my hardtail and find it barely adequate. I believe a 170mm One Up would fit but is the $10 per millimeter cost to upgrade worth it? (+20mm @ $200) I think not.

At the same time my GF is just 5'3" and has a 125mm dropper on her Shredd Dog -- her post is buried, can't go down even 1mm further. She never complains though she doesn't jump or descend steep tech like I do.

In the end, to each his/her own, I'm just saying not everyone wants/needs the longest dropper possible. Personally I do.
=sParty


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

ejewels said:


> Sorry yeah I meant the seat tube of the frame... sometimes a larger size has a higher seat tube making it harder for people to run larger droppers.


Gotcha, ya there can always be one factor that forces your hand... But I'm assuming we are talking all other factors equal. If there's nothing forcing my hand, I go for the larger size.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Sparticus said:


> True and tragic IMO, Harold.
> 
> But then I suppose the shorter a rider is, the shorter their dropper needs to be.
> 
> ...


I don't think it's tragic.

We buy frames in sizes appropriate to our body dimensions. Why should dropper posts be different? I'm shorter than you, and therefore what I consider an acceptable range of dropper lengths would be shorter than what you consider an acceptable range. I'm not denying that I wouldn't make use of a longer dropper if one happened to fit. It's just that the longer the dropper, the lower the likelihood that I'll be able to find a fit. And the whole reason I bought the Oneup dropper is because it's the dropper with the most drop that'll fit this frame for me.

My Oneup dropper is going to be buried in my Pedalhead. Not to the collar of the dropper. Rather, the burying is going to be inside the frame, to the bend in the seat tube. It is what it is.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

I'm 6'5", sizing up isn't really a thing for me.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

I can't ride a big bike, but can ride small ones with taller seat and front stack


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I'm 5'9 and was 5'10 when I started 30+ years back. Always had medium frames with long stems because it was what shops always recommended. After years of experimenting I am on what most companies would call a large. I won't buy a bike that doesn't accept at least a 160 Revive or needs a stem longer than 50mm (maybe 40mm). My bikes fit and feel great, but body proportions, preferences, and terrain vary wildly so I recommend trying both.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

I'd get the "correct" size for my body. I've always rode a medium no matter the bike manufacturer...and that's what I stick with. Some prefer a shorter bike...some like long. There really isn't a correct answer. The people that do decide to move up or down sizes typically have been riding for a while and will buy according to what and where they ride.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

What really opened my eyes was trying a Mondraker medium, which was like a lot of brands XL at the time. I mail ordered that frame from France after reading about their forward geometry as an experiment. Long reach, stubby stem, no downside besides being a stiff aluminum hardtail. I say life is too short not to try something different


----------



## nauc (Sep 9, 2009)

i demoed a SC bike one time, it was a Med (SC recommends a Large for me). it felt ok when sitting, but when i stood up and started throwing the bike around, i hit my knee on the fork crown. holy fuk, that hurt like hell

SC was right about riding a Large


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

^ that's what I mean! That's not nimble, that **** hurts! :lol:

You end up fighting the small size.


----------



## nauc (Sep 9, 2009)

^, yah, that **** was brutal. never done that before. hope i never do it again


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

Down, because with a dropper post and a frame that's just a bit too small, it's a blast to do switchbacks now. You can use your outside leg to balance the bike or to kick off a switchback to redirect the bike, instead of just feeling like you are riding on a horse and are about to fall over all the time on steep twisty sections.


----------



## ejewels (Jul 16, 2009)

Thanks all. I will be buying the large (19.5). Luckily, the fuel ex "large" is sort of smaller than some other mfg's larges. So this time I'll upsize for once when in between sizes. Plus I'm getting older now, so the added stability will be welcome since I'm not throwing the bike around much.


----------



## nauc (Sep 9, 2009)

cool. which one you getting?


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

Custom frames for the win.


----------



## Outrider66 (Jan 30, 2018)

Coming from a bike I had ridden for almost 10 years that was too big for me, and going to a bike I recently got that is almost too small for me, I am very glad I did that. It is sooooo much easier now to throw a leg over it, or put a foot down when I get in a predicament.

I am almost always in-between sizes on everything - clothes, shoes, bikes, etc. On the contrary, I can't say I am ever pleased by going too small in clothes or shoes, but I definitely am on bikes.


----------



## ejewels (Jul 16, 2009)

nauc said:


> cool. which one you getting?


Guy wasn't there so didn't end up getting... but its a '18 fuel ex... size 18.5 or 19.5 is the question.

basically i can get a leftover 2018 Trek Fuel EX8 size 19.5 and save about $1000 or get a less spec'd 2019 EX7 size 18.5 for even a little more. Their size charts start the 19.5 at 5'9.7" to 6'2". I'm 5'9.5" barefoot with a long inseam and +2 ape index. I really could fit both since the 18.5 goes to 5'10.5" on the charts. Only real difference is 1.5cm longer reach and WB. Stack is the same on both bikes. ST is longer on the 19.5 but I have a 33.8" inseam so not an issue.

Decisions, decisions.


----------



## IntenseEextremities (Oct 31, 2019)

I'm about 5'10 with shoes on and bought a 2019 Intense Tracer in a size large. I was in between sizes so I bought something longer for stability.

As my riding progressed I wanted something a lot more agile.I tried compensating by downsizing to a 33mm stem but then the bike felt very twitchy. I sold the bike and now Im going to buy a medium for next season. 

I think downsizing is the way to go if you can provide more stability on rocky tech by adjusting your riding style. You can either have the bike do most of the work or you can adjust so youre using more body movements which I think is fun.


----------



## str8edgMTBMXer (Apr 15, 2015)

I agree with down sizing...easier to modify a too small bike than too large, plus, having grown up on BMX, I don't like a lot of bike under me for most riding situations. 

I am wondering if that will change as I am planning on doing less "jumping" and more bike packing type riding as it becomes harder for my body to heal...


----------



## KingOfOrd (Feb 19, 2005)

My back hurts just thinking about downsizing


----------



## MarcusBrody (Apr 1, 2014)

I'm generally pretty solidly an XL at 190cm, but some of the new longer reach bikes have made larges looks more attractive than in the past (for models without super steep STAs). Guerrilla Gravity - for instance - suggests a size 3 (L) with a 60mm stem and headset in long position for all around riding.


----------



## tubbnation (Jul 6, 2015)

I upsized.

I'm almost 6' and I test rode a L & XL 2017 TB3 a couple years back ...

Felt more on top on the L. Felt more "in" on the XL. Bought the XL, got a shorter stem and slid my seat up some.


----------



## almazing (Jul 26, 2017)

I'm 5'7 so I'm in between smalls and mediums for 29ers in just about all brands. I always go medium. I usually have a range of geometry figures I go after. ST can not be longer than 420mm due to dropper selection. ETT is around 590-630mm. Reach is 420-470mm. If the bike fits within these geo numbers, I can ride it effectively without discomfort or feeling too big or small, regardless of the travel or type of bike.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I’m 5’6” on a great day, but with relatively long legs (31.5” cycling inseam), broad-ish shoulders and long arms. 

Mediums with long TTs and short HT/stack. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

str8edgMTBMXer said:


> I agree with down sizing...easier to modify a too small bike than too large, plus, having grown up on BMX, I don't like a lot of bike under me for most riding situations.
> 
> I am wondering if that will change as I am planning on doing less "jumping" and more bike packing type riding as it becomes harder for my body to heal...


That was how people thought back in the 1990s and early 2000s, but 35mm and shorter stems have kind of turned it back the opposite way and it's important to note that you spend the vast majority of your time "not descending" or "not jumping", not to mention modern bikes working better for that across the board.


----------



## Tristan Wolf (Oct 21, 2019)

Depending on the frame, I am (officially) either XL, or Between L and XL.
On my current frame (Scott Scale 900 series carbon boost) I am officially XL.
But I ride L (with my previous three HT frames pretty much the same). Yes, seatpost extends a couple of mm past its min. insertion mark.
But on the very beginning (my first frame) was XL. It did not felt right to me. I was overstretched and had more difficulty controlling bike in tight single-track. Also lower standover height gives me much more confidence.
To point out, Im 193cm (6’4”) and fairly proportional.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

I've done both.

Use to own a 2012 Transition Bandit XL.

Know own a 2018 Giant Reign Advanced 0, size M.

The geo on the Reign is lengthier in all departments, except stack and standover (& CS length).

Sent from my HD1900 using Tapatalk


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

I size off the top tube. I'm 5'11 with a 0 ape index and find 24" or a little over fine for an off the shelf frame. I can fine tune with the stem. When ordering custom, I go with 24" on the nose and an 18" seat tube.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

I do see some benefit to keeping bike size in check. I ride XXL bikes so I'm very familiar with long bikes on tight trails. I think though, if you're buying a size down then going to a 20mm+ longer stem and using a offset seat post/dropper you probably bought the wrong bike. I don't see any point in buying a modern slack bike then swapping the 40mm stem for a 70mm+ stem. It makes more sense from a handling perspective to get a bike with a steeper HTA and/or short chainstays but a long enough reach to run the stock stem... IOW, buy the bike suited for your terrain and riding style.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

I dress to the left if that makes a difference.


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

That will depend on how much +/- you have to give up to your ultimate dimensions. EG +25/-5 down size, -15/+10 upsize. 

I also have to agree that there are many similar bikes out there with inbetween measurements for just about every style and suspension type. If the brand you are looking at doesnt have the fit you need look at other brands. You will probably find the fit.


----------



## Skeptastic (Mar 31, 2012)

Vader said:


> I size off the top tube. I'm 5'11 with a 0 ape index and find 24" or a little over fine for an off the shelf frame. I can fine tune with the stem. When ordering custom, I go with 24" on the nose and an 18" seat tube.


Really insightful for me. At 5'11.25" on the dot, with a 0 ape index, I am always right between sizes. It took buying a used 2018 Norco Torrent off of Pinkbike, with a 645 mm/25.4" top tube to realize how important ETT length is for me. My 33.5" inseam makes it tough to size down to medium without running a lot of seatpost, but from now on if a size large has too long of a top tube, it's gotta be demoed on an actual trail, or I gotta pass.

That being said, it's rare to find a large with a 645 mm top tube. I thought it was just me, but this thing is crazy long when seated. I've had to employ a 35 mm stem, spacers, and 45 mm riser bars with a 16 degree backsweep, and I still feel uncomfy. Too frugal and stubborn to sell it, but it is definitely on my mind, haha.

What's your cycling inseam, by the way?


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

I dress to the left if that makes a difference.


Edit: Oops, great minds think alike.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Heretic Skeptic said:


> Really insightful for me. At 5'11.25" on the dot, with a 0 ape index, I am always right between sizes. It took buying a used 2018 Norco Torrent off of Pinkbike, with a 645 mm/25.4" top tube to realize how important ETT length is for me. My 33.5" inseam makes it tough to size down to medium without running a lot of seatpost, but from now on if a size large has too long of a top tube, it's gotta be demoed on an actual trail, or I gotta pass.
> 
> That being said, it's rare to find a large with a 645 mm top tube. I thought it was just me, but this thing is crazy long when seated. I've had to employ a 35 mm stem, spacers, and 45 mm riser bars with a 16 degree backsweep, and I still feel uncomfy. Too frugal and stubborn to sell it, but it is definitely on my mind, haha.
> 
> What's your cycling inseam, by the way?


One major issue is that you're relying too much on the geo table and its "effective" measurements. ETT and effective STA...

The '18 Torrent has an effective STA of 72.5 degrees, but that's at a height of 625mm above the BB. The top of your saddle is likely over 750mm from the BB, and is likely placing the saddle a good deal behind the BB due to a much slacker actual STA. Check the distance from where you sit to your hands. Maybe find a way to measure the STA too (smartphone app?).

Just saying, there's gotta be something else going on, as 25mm of difference (less than a thumb's width) shouldn't be that big of a deal unless you were already close to your limits, or have some abnormally small sweet spot. Take some actual measurements to test the validity of theories... did you confirm it to have a 645mm ETT with your own measurement? Is your saddle noticeably rearward compared to other bikes? What do you exactly mean about still being uncomfy when seated?

-------

Manufactures tend to recommend medium to me at 5' 7", sometimes putting me at the edge of small and med. I sometimes consider sizing up to L since I prefer the longer front end for comfort on epics (4+ hours). Nothing much keeping me from sizing up, though I try to avoid seat tubes over 18"/460mm. If I size down, I tend to not last very long before my ass is burning, or something else is aching (at 1.5 hours into ride). That and I get annoyed by smaller sizes due to how my knees smash into the shifter(s) while pedaling out-of-the-saddle, or even pedaling around switchbacks. Smaller sizes also get bucked/pitched around like a mechanical bull. They're certainly more playful on tamer stuff, but I prefer stability when the stuff is rough and raw. The stability makes climbs and flats more pleasant too, and I generally crash less. More of passive passenger enjoying the ride when I upsize, contrasting my deathgripping, manhandling, and poor braking habits on smaller sizes.


----------



## Skeptastic (Mar 31, 2012)

Varaxis said:


> One major issue is that you're relying too much on the geo table and its "effective" measurements. ETT and effective STA...
> 
> The '18 Torrent has an effective STA of 72.5 degrees, but that's at a height of 625mm above the BB. The top of your saddle is likely over 750mm from the BB, and is likely placing the saddle a good deal behind the BB due to a much slacker actual STA. Check the distance from where you sit to your hands. Maybe find a way to measure the STA too (smartphone app?).
> 
> Just saying, there's gotta be something else going on, as 25mm of difference (less than a thumb's width) shouldn't be that big of a deal unless you were already close to your limits, or have some abnormally small sweet spot. Take some actual measurements to test the validity of theories... did you confirm it to have a 645mm ETT with your own measurement? Is your saddle noticeably rearward compared to other bikes? What do you exactly mean about still being uncomfy when seated?


Yeah, my saddle height is 745 mm from the bb, so I am sure it's placing me a lot further behind the bb than the effective seat angle would indicate. I'd already measured the ETT based on my current setup, and it's right at 645 mm. Where did you find that the ETT is measured at 625 mm above bb? The effective seat angle is 72.1 for a size large, which is what I have. 72.5 is for a medium. I'm guessing that the effective seat tube angle for a large is measured at a much higher bb-to-saddle height than 625 mm.

But yeah, I haven't been looking at the geo table for the Torrent, as much as measuring things myself, adjusting the seat position, bar height, stem length, etc. I won't even go as far as to say it's too big of a bike, but I will say that I find it a lot more uncomfortable than my my previous bikes. It isn't terrible, but I do believe it wasn't the optimal choice, had I been more aware of the geometry as compared to other bikes I've owned.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

ETT is just measured that way, horizontally from the upper hole of the head tube. Stack measurement is distance above BB to the same spot at HT. I said ETT is measured 625ish above BB, but that's directly above; calculates to 653.67mm from BB when measured along STA. https://www.norco.com/bike-archives/2018/torrent-ht-2/

Besides checking the seat to grip measurement, one measurement you can take is checking your weight distro on the bike, having a weight scale (bathroom style even) under each wheel. Find the ratio of weight distro, to see what % of weight is on the rear compared to the front. Check for your seated position and check for your standing one.

Slack STAs tend to have well over 70% of the weight on the rear when seated, esp with short CS. Standing up, I prefer a 60/40 distro with a relaxed position. I'd prefer if there weren't such a vast distro difference between seated and standing, and I'm reluctant to compromise on standing position as it matters more when riding at the limit.

Implying that your might bike might have things setup to be the equivalent of sitting over the rear wheel of a bus and feeling more of the bumps, compared to if you were centered between the wheels. Part of why I asked what exactly you mean by being uncomfy while seated.

As an analogy: it takes much more effort to lift your butt off a couch to stand up (saddle far behind BB), than it is to do so when sitting on a stool (saddle closer to being above BB). Easier to "hover" and soak bumps with legs with steeper STA, which seems to be the modern strategy for comfort, over the older strategy of relying on a flexy seatpost (with slack STA).


----------



## Skeptastic (Mar 31, 2012)

Varaxis said:


> ETT is just measured that way, horizontally from the upper hole of the head tube (stack measurement is distance above BB to the same spot at HT). https://www.norco.com/bike-archives/2018/torrent-ht-2/
> 
> Besides checking the seat to grip measurement, one measurement you can take is checking your weight distro on the bike, having a weight scale (bathroom style even) under each wheel. Find the ratio of weight distro, to see what % of weight is on the rear compared to the front. Check for your seated position and check for your standing one.
> 
> ...


The wight distribution idea is a great one. I'll have to get another one so I can check! Would a bike trainer be needed in order to balance, or is there some other method of accurately and safely doing this? It would be more helpful than any sort of geo numbers to know what my weight distribution is.

Sorry for missing the question about the reason for my discomfort. It's the pressure on my hands, as well feeling like I am too far stretched out, which is causing some lower back pain. It's wild because I've done so much to try and get the bars even to or higher than my saddle height, and/or closer to my body, just to try and alleviate some of the hand and lower back pain, but I've kind of run out of options. I can't fit any more spacers and I've got the SQlab 16 degree back sweep 45 mm riser bars. My bars are about 1.3" above my saddle, which is probably about as high as they'd need to be, though I'm sure some run them higher than that.

I could be wrong, but at this point, it feels like being able to bring the bars closer to me would put me in a more upright position, distribute more weight to my saddle than my hands, and alleviate some lower back pain. There's just no way to do this without moving the saddle forward or having a smaller front center, which is where the idea that maybe a medium was the way to go from the start. The rear center only charges by 2 mm while the front center changes by about 26 mm, with each increasing bike size. The ETT per the geo chart changes 30 mm per size. You're right, it isn't a huge number, but it can be pretty significant in rear world usage, especially for someone who's been off the bike for a while. But, being off the bike for a while can also have a pretty significant effect, haha.

I tried moving the saddle forward this week and it felt like an awkward and suboptimal pedaling position (seat too close to the bottom bracket), while also putting more pressure on my hands. The toughest part is that my normal riding position did have the saddle pushed as far back as possible. This feels like a solid pedaling position, with knee over the spindle and the ability to lift my torso without touching the bars and without pushing off of the bars to do so.

In reality, it could very well be that I have less pain in my hands when the saddle is pushed rearward, but in turn am compromising my position, ultimately forcing me to stretch out to reach the bars. At any rate, I feel like the weight distribution percentages would be excellent to know. I have less hand pain when the seat is back than I did this week with it pushed forward to the center of the rails. This makes sense, as more weight would be distributed over the rear with the saddle pushed to the rear. But I still need the bars to come back toward me, haha. Honestly, it could also be a cycling fitness issue, with my core not being as strong as is necessary to not feel the back pain when stretched out to reach the bars.

Having previously ridden medium hardtails with top tube lengths of 597 mm and 615 mm, I naturally question whether I felt better on those because the bars were closer to the bottom bracket and thus my body, with the lower front center. In addition, chainstays haven't changed much at all, while front centers and wheelbases have gotten much longer. Then again, I could have gotten used to those previous bikes and been more cycling fit, haha! Always a myriad and combination of factors that go into bike fit. Such a tough thing to figure out, but worth every second spent to do so.

I wonder if a lot of folks are finding long bikes with slack seat tube angles to fit poorly, regardless of size. Might take some time to get used to, but it's been about 8 months now, so I should have been acclimated by now. I should have done more research, or maybe even purchased a new bike just to gain some insight to work with before going used. In the end, though, this is a great learning experience. You gotta start somewhere after such a lengthy hiatus!


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Ah, your upper body's weight isn't being carried well. Propping it up with arms puts pressure on hands/wrists. The back only does so much before being exhausted. If you make your position more upright, such as pushing away from the bar, it just shifts the burden to your saddle until the pressure on your ass becomes unbearable. Gotta spread & balance the load out, so the stress is under a certain threshold that doesn't build up fatigue.

Besides just strengthening these weak links, which takes repetitive training investment, I suggest that you tense up your abs to transfer some upper bodyweight to your legs. Think of hinging at your hips rather than bending at your waist, such as if you were doing a proper sit-up. You should feel the stretch connecting your back to the backside of your legs, such as if you were doing a touch-your-toes stretch. I suppose I just remind myself to push my belly button out/forward to stop slouching, which rotates the hips forward and puts some of that weight into my pedal stroke--it's a win-win, with a load off my back/ass/hands, and extra pedaling power. If done right you can basically drop your elbows with your body leaning forward with chin over the stem, since your glutes will be engaged in carrying that load.

To do the weight scale thing, I just set things up like I was setting sag, with a pillar or wall nearby to keep things balanced upright.

For me, a big part of the steep STA thing is correcting how I re-adapted to a mid-foot pedaling style, where the axle of the pedal is more under the arch than under the ball of the feet. I've practically moved my feet over 2" forward, maybe 2.5", which is equivalent to moving the saddle back that much. For my saddle height (710-720mm), that's about 5 degrees of STA slacker. Also, STA should correct how long travel FS bikes sag when climbing. Considering how 73 was the standard STA for HTs (unsagged?), STA still has room to steepen for me, past the new norm of 77 degrees. Looking forward to when STA are so steep that the nose of the saddle is forward of the BB; so far I've only seen the Privateer 161 demonstrating this with a 80 degree STA.

I don't fuss over seated comfort too much, but I've been riding FS full time, and have a SMP saddle that I really like. I rather not compromise the out-of-the-saddle performance for some seated comfort. I rather not be a type that spends 95% of the time in the saddle, like it were a couch. The SMP saddle was a game changer for me, to the point I haven't bothered with a chamois nor cream for years, even for 4+ hour rides, and even dressed in casual clothes.

But this is just me. I'm not stressed by carrying extra weight, being a skinny guy. The most I gotta worry about is 10 extra pounds on my back from my pack. I've been able to carry an extra 30 lbs or so for half an hour as occasional errands, but I can't imagine carrying much more than that such as if my body were built more massively.


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

Sparticus said:


> These comments mirror my feelings.
> 
> Personally I'm more comfortable taking to the air on a bike with a longer wheelbase. If I launch wonky, I can land front-heavy without going over the bars. These days I enjoy taking to the air more and more.
> =sParty


I agree on what Sparty says. I definitely feel much more comfortable jumping a bigger bike than a small one. The more modern geometry feels more forgiving. In a more modern geo (low, long, slack HA, steep STA), I feel much more stable riding in a lower handlebar position than I ever felt with the older geos as well. That allows me to ride a bigger size (I'm usually between a medium and small), so I tend to go up.


----------



## Simon789 (Jun 29, 2019)

For me a bike that is a too small is better than a bike that is too big. But it's only my opinion.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

I've tried sizing down in the past and the bike was nimble, agile and playful.... However at top speed, going down steep lines, I had the sensation of being pitched over the front.

I bought based on geo no.s - the bike was longer in all departments when compared to an earlier iteration (more modern geo) except the TT which was 5mm shorter.

I was/am a bit gutted as it's a stellar bike. It's intended purpose is/was big mountain riding.

Just waiting on a friend to come up with the coin and I'll send it his way.

Bar width, stem length and seat height all help/hinder with that 'in the bike' feel.

But you can't change TT and WB 

Sent from my HD1900 using Tapatalk


----------

