# When will bike manufacturers start adding the stack we taller folks need to larger frames?



## Grindup (9 mo ago)

I'm 6'3" and every bike I buy I have to add bars with more rise to get a good position on the bike. I generally ride the recommended frame size so the the bike company knows my general size. It seems the manufacturers want to put us tall guys in an aggressive XC position no matter the bike. Am I expecting too much for a trail or enduro bike to have a bit more stack or at minimum some higher rise bars so I'm not hunched over? Why can't tall guys get the same fit that shorter folks get right "out of the box"?

Sorry for the rant.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Yeah lots of XL and XXL bikes out there with really long reaches but low stacks. Anyone that actually needs a 530mm reach is going to have to have their bars pretty high unless they're built like Cotton Hill.

Santa Cruz has been pretty good about this lately. Instead having like 545mm reach with 635mm stack their XXL bikes are like 520mm reach with 670mm stack


----------



## HollyBoni (Dec 27, 2016)

I don't get that either. I'm not that tall, but I have pretty long legs for my height (185cm with a ~92cm inseam). When I check a geo table, pretty much the first thing I look at is the headtube length, and it's usually too short for my taste. I also love that complete bikes usually come with steers that are cut short. At least give me the option to run more spacers if I want to (and i'm not talking about a crazy amount of spacers here).


----------



## Blatant (Apr 13, 2005)

Banshee.


----------



## Space Robot (Sep 13, 2008)

I’m short and I agree with this sentiment. Not everyone wants to run their bars at seat level or below. I prefer mine to be above as much as possible. I also have a long inseam for my height. Longer headtubes would be nice on all sizes.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

I thought it was interesting looking at the new Trek Fuel EX. They have an XXL, which has 545mm of reach, which is truely quite big. But... it has less stack than my size large Banshee (634.9mm vs my Titans 647mm).

If Raaw made an XXL, they'd be one to look at. Their XL Madonna V2.2 has 505mm reach, but 670mm of stack, which when you crunch the numbers, is only slightly smaller than that XXL Trek.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Space Robot said:


> I’m short and I agree with this sentiment. Not everyone wants to run their bars at seat level or below. I prefer mine to be above as much as possible. I also have a long inseam for my height. Longer headtubes would be nice on all sizes.



I run my bars 1.5" below my saddle and that's with 666mm of stack...that's how bad the issue is.


----------



## Grindup (9 mo ago)

I'd like my bars about an inch or inch and a half above my saddle without having to run ridiculously high riser bars.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

30mm of spacers, and a 50mm rise bar.. puts my bars and saddle pretty much level. I'm only 6'2".


----------



## yzedf (Apr 22, 2014)

Over 6’3” but my arms are long enough I get to keep the stem low and run whatever the stock bar is. If only I could find longer long sleeves LOL


----------



## Grindup (9 mo ago)

dysfunction said:


> 30mm of spacers, and a 50mm rise bar.. puts my bars and saddle pretty much level. I'm only 6'2".


But what rise bars did your bike come with? I have to run 60mm+ on some bikes to get the proper height.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Grindup said:


> But what rise bars did your bike come with? I have to run 60mm+ on some bikes to get the proper height.


None. Advantage of starting with a frame.


----------



## Grindup (9 mo ago)

dysfunction said:


> None. Advantage of starting with a frame.


LOL. Well played.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

I'm 6'4", ride xl or XXL and have my bars slammed. 4-5 inches below my saddle and it's on a 180mm DH bike. 

You can always add stack with stem and bars, but you can't take it away. Keeping the stack middle/low let's the bike fit everyone.

Easy answer is they never will.

Don't get me started on 1 size fits all chain stays.


----------



## Darth Lefty (Sep 29, 2014)

Bikes today with 2.6x29 tires and 130mm+ forks have a _lot_ of stack built in to begin with. I think the people who design bike fit wish it were not so.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Darth Lefty said:


> Bikes today with 2.6x29 tires and 130mm+ forks have a _lot_ of stack built in to begin with. I think the people who design bike fit wish it were not so.


Short people get a whole lot more stack. Stack height on my tilt is 8mm shorter, for someone a foot shorter than me.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Darth Lefty said:


> Bikes today with 2.6x29 tires and 130mm+ forks have a _lot_ of stack built in to begin with. I think the people who design bike fit wish it were not so.


Haha are you sure you know what stack is?(im joking) For reference look at the majority of medium sized bikes on mtbr, and their saddle to bar height relationships. Unless the rider is very aggressive they are typically very close to level. They are able to achieve that relationship with minimal spacers and bar rise. 

99% of the bikes that are appropriate for my trails (120mm travel fs or hardtails) have stack from 620-640mm. The difference in HT length is usually less then 30mm from size small to size XXL. Tell me how that is plenty of stack please. I'm all ears.


----------



## Pisgah (Feb 24, 2006)

The last two new/used bikes I bought required me to send the forks back to the manufacturer for new steerers (so I could add spacers). The bikes were larges and I straddle the fence between medium and large. 

As far as I can tell, too low stacks are an industry wide problem right now.


----------



## Darth Lefty (Sep 29, 2014)

jonshonda said:


> Haha are you sure you know what stack is?(im joking) For reference look at the majority of medium sized bikes on mtbr, and their saddle to bar height relationships. Unless the rider is very aggressive they are typically very close to level. They are able to achieve that relationship with minimal spacers and bar rise.
> 
> 99% of the bikes that are appropriate for my trails (120mm travel fs or hardtails) have stack from 620-640mm. The difference in HT length is usually less then 30mm from size small to size XXL. Tell me how that is plenty of stack please. I'm all ears.


I'm not dictating what you like. But the people who design frames have not _ever_ given you a lot of stack. They are right now about as tall as they have ever been. A bike from twenty years ago would be two inches lower stack for the XL. The people riding XS today are _really_ SOL


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Basically, like always, if you're outside the 40-60 percentile you're fooked.

My wife is ~5' she's got exactly the same problems as being over 6'.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Small bikes have too much. 
Medium have the right amount.
XL have too little.

Stack.
Chain stays.
Toe overlap. 

Old bikes:
Dropper.
Reach.
Stiffness.

Only some riders want more stack. Good thing it's an easy fix.


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

Grindup said:


> I'm 6'3" and every bike I buy I have to add bars with more rise to get a good position on the bike. I generally ride the recommended frame size so the the bike company knows my general size. It seems the manufacturers want to put us tall guys in an aggressive XC position no matter the bike. Am I expecting too much for a trail or enduro bike to have a bit more stack or at minimum some higher rise bars so I'm not hunched over? Why can't tall guys get the same fit that shorter folks get right "out of the box"?
> 
> Sorry for the rant.


True, I am a bike fitter, and for every client 6’2” and up I am searching out tall riserbars, and still often end up with an XC angle for their fit.

As others have mentioned, it’s always an issue for the sides of the bell curve, and at least us tall folks have benefitted from reach growing, whereas short folks just got worse.

Also, finally rear centers are becoming proportional, so that is a great thing for all sizes.


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

alexbn921 said:


> I'm 6'4", ride xl or XXL and have my bars slammed. 4-5 inches below my saddle and it's on a 180mm DH bike.
> 
> You can always add stack with stem and bars, but you can't take it away. Keeping the stack middle/low let's the bike fit everyone.
> 
> ...


If you have your bars that much lower than your saddle on a DH bike, are you sure you're set up properly bro?


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

TooTallUK said:


> If you have your bars that much lower than your saddle on a DH bike, are you sure you're set up properly bro?


No of course not. 
I need front end grip as the front to rear center ratio is so out of wack. I also have a 36 inseam so my seat is 4 inches higher than a medium. Right now I'm ordering a longer stem so I can shift forward and up on the bars.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Agreed, I build most of mine from the frame up and headset spacers and riser bars are required on all of my bikes. I'm only 6'3".


----------



## In2bikes (5 mo ago)

I was pretty shocked to see the 23 Fuel Ex with such short stack. 

So as the sizes grow the reach needs to taper back a little bit and more emphasis needs to be on the stack increase. this is just geometry basics!!!!

lots of body types, short torso, long torso, narrow shoulder, wide shoulder, etc. But if they see this massive need to change reach, why cant they also see the massive need to raise stack.

FWIW: I think they got the chain stays figured out on the bike.


----------



## In2bikes (5 mo ago)

my bike with my current setup vs the 2023 xxl fuel ex stock











my bike above has a 70mm stem and 38mm risers on 686 stack and 477 reach, Effective 466 reach, 807 stack. i like the bar height and its a good trail bike, but i wish my grips were 20mm further forward and the bike was slacker.

Adding 110mm riser bars to the 23 fex gives this.












I think id like that! Especially with the longer rear and front centers.

But just out of the box from trek, the fex would need 520 reach and 715 stack 170 htl with stock controls.













guess i need to go shopping for 110mm riser bars!!!


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

In2bikes said:


> guess i need to go shopping for 110mm riser bars!!!


Deity has some 80mm risers, so... there is hope!


----------



## In2bikes (5 mo ago)

I might get some press fit headset cup extenders built to bring the stack up. Maybe use some adhesive bonding agent to make it permanent. Then I can insert the stock bearings and ride it Safely. 

too bad trek is too worried about letting riders 5’9” ride xxl bikes instead of 6’6” riders ride them.


----------



## In2bikes (5 mo ago)

too Much or too little stack?


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

In2bikes said:


> I might get some press fit headset cup extenders built to bring the stack up. Maybe use some adhesive bonding agent to make it permanent. Then I can insert the stock bearings and ride it Safely.


That will help getting bars where you need them but doesn't make the frame any larger. It's the same as adding spacers geometry wise.


----------



## In2bikes (5 mo ago)

yep


----------



## In2bikes (5 mo ago)

Bump


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

So just curious, what’s the best way for manufactures to add stack for the larger sizes?
Lower BB, Taller head tube or Longer travel fork?

Stack is a function of bb height, fork height and head tube height, right?


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Head tube length should increase with the sizes.


----------



## brawlo (Mar 13, 2012)

There is no substitute for head tube length. My custom XC HT has a 195mm head tube


----------



## In2bikes (5 mo ago)

So like why dont they advertise the bike with the seat 5" above the bars










wonder if the stock seat post will work for me. S5 evo post wont come up high enough. I imagine the 170mm post on the xxl will not have enough insertion depth at full extension and a 200mm post wont insert deep enough!

anyone seen a xxl?


----------



## In2bikes (5 mo ago)

Head tube length of 135mm on xxl

probably the max length that allowed the adjustable hta system to work

wouldnt want to increase bike weight by making a system that worked on a 170mm head tube and have it forced down the frame sizes into xs.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

I would be really curious if the Trek (actually insert most main stream bike manufacturers name) test riders are all pro's with zero body fat and the ability to comfortably handle a 2-5" bar drop? 

Ventana really seams to have a good grasp on sizing for taller folks, and they allow you to swap head tubes and such to get a really appropriate fitment. I don't know how efficient their pedaling platform is on full suspension, but at least they are aware of the need to size up a bit more then 10mm between Medium and XXL on the headtubes.


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

jonshonda said:


> I would be really curious if the Trek (actually insert most main stream bike manufacturers name) test riders are all pro's with zero body fat and the ability to comfortably handle a 2-5" bar drop?


I've seen the same issue raised by professional bike fitters. Road bikes being designed for world class athletes with all the flexibility, power, body weight etc that goes along with being a pro, but the customers being middle aged men who are heavier, less flexible and not riding 300 miles per week. 
I think the mountain bike and now gravel bike world could get away with more bikes aimed at 'real' riders, but the road world possibly not.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

TooTallUK said:


> I've seen the same issue raised by professional bike fitters. Road bikes being designed for world class athletes with all the flexibility, power, body weight etc that goes along with being a pro, but the customers being middle aged men who are heavier, less flexible and not riding 300 miles per week.
> I think the mountain bike and now gravel bike world could get away with more bikes aimed at 'real' riders, but the road world possibly not.


I could see an argument for racing bikes being setup for aggressive riding positions. 

Maybe we are mistaken on the relationship between inseam and arm length as height increases? Like if you are taller you have longer arms in relation to your inseam vs a 5'10" rider, and that is why designers only increase stack by 10mm for a rider that is possibly 6" taller?


----------



## In2bikes (5 mo ago)

jonshonda said:


> I could see an argument for racing bikes being setup for aggressive riding positions.
> 
> Maybe we are mistaken on the relationship between inseam and arm length as height increases? Like if you are taller you have longer arms in relation to your inseam vs a 5'10" rider, and that is why designers only increase stack by 10mm for a rider that is possibly 6" taller?


explain the seat to bar drop relationship across the size ranges. 
if people like their bars just slightly below the seat, why should tall people want the bars 5" below the seat.

answer they dont. 

When standing in the attack position, we want to have the same bracing position as a shorter person. Our large torso is up in the air raising the center of gravity. We dont want the contact point of the hands down at our knees. Especially doing anything steep!


----------



## Ray Lee (Aug 17, 2007)

jonshonda said:


> I could see an argument for racing bikes being setup for aggressive riding positions.


looking at enduro, endurance XC, DH race bike pics (sure seems about 99% mediums) the overwhelming majority seem to have the saddle at bar hight or within an inch or so but looking at our XL and XXL bikes here... our big bikes often have crazy saddle to grip drop more like a pro road race bike or have combos of riser stems, riser bars, spacers just to make them ridable. 

A few years ago doing research on a new longer travel bike I found so many images like this :O


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

jonshonda said:


> I could see an argument for racing bikes being setup for aggressive riding positions.


Thing is you need training, flexibility etc to be able to ride in the more aggressive riding positions. Most of the bike buyers don't have those and end up being uncomfortable or trying to raise the bars for comfort. They shouldn't really be riding such aggressive bikes with the geometry. They should ride more relaxed geometry and being more upright.


----------



## Ray Lee (Aug 17, 2007)

TooTallUK said:


> Thing is you need training, flexibility etc to be able to ride in the more aggressive riding positions. Most of the bike buyers don't have those and end up being uncomfortable or trying to raise the bars for comfort. They shouldn't really be riding such aggressive bikes with the geometry. They should ride more relaxed geometry and being more upright.


I can ride an "aggressive" position without much discomfort (road bike and gravel bike) but its just so sketchy on anything remotely steep or tech on a mountain bike, us tall guys are in a deep squat trying to get a balanced attack position.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

jeremy3220 said:


> Head tube length should increase with the sizes.


So then really the question is;
When will manufactures start increases Head Tubes lengths we taller folks need on larger frames?

Why is bb height and fork length being brought into this?


----------



## In2bikes (5 mo ago)

I followed a fellow tall guy on trail recently
it was obvious to see how low his hands were relative to his seat.

i guess with no dad bod and his youth he was able to deal with the position.

but should he? What was the benefit of his 5" bar drop?

why arent medium sixe riders running similar bar drops to their seat height


----------



## brawlo (Mar 13, 2012)

I think it’s a story of you learn to ride what you’ve got and cope with it. Every step closer to a “standard” ride position feels much better. I learned what a proper fitting bike felt like years ago when I bought a Canyon Ultimate 3XL road bike. Going from low pro to comfortable was a revelation that I vowed to carry on. When I got into MTB I had a Scott Scale XL. It worked but wasn’t right. After my road bike fit I updated the Scott to a Pole Taival as soon as I could. I rode that for some time before cranking some 50mm riser bars up on a steep stem to be just at saddle height before sagged. Once again, a revelation! I’ve wanted a FS upgrade since just before covid hit but to get that same comfort is no cheap feat and there’s very very few proper options out there for tall guys. Nicolai is where my money will go when I sort my crap out


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

My bar height is set up totally based on getting my hands neutrally weighted while standing. This ends up putting my bars about 1.5" below my saddle. I position the saddle fore and aft to get the seated weight balance right.

I guess what feels neutrally weighted is a bit different for everyone. However a few riders I know have their bars at or above saddle height which puts them in an upright position. Looks comfortable on flat ground but on the climbs they're hanging off the back. Being able to get your weight on the bars and front wheel when you need to is a necessity for me. The rear suspension really firms up once you're not hanging off the back. It also allows for easily dynamically weight the front on descents. Once your bars get so high you can end up in passenger mode, like driving from the back seat.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

^What is interesting for me is that when descending I am usually off the saddle and tucked lower then normal pedaling position, with a lot of weight on my feet, heels down, and the bars don't have a lot of weight on them. It allow me to lift and absorb over rocks and roots. In the corners I try to steer a bit with my hips and weigh the pedals appropriately, with some weight on the bars. 

I also shift towards the front of the saddle on steeper climbs, and have my arms bent to compensate for the front end being taller going up. With 455mm stays I have no traction issues, my front end tracks perfectly, and it just light enough that lifting the front doesn't come with any drama.


----------



## In2bikes (5 mo ago)

jonshonda said:


> ^What is interesting for me is that when descending I am usually off the saddle and tucked lower then normal pedaling position, with a lot of weight on my feet, heels down, and the bars don't have a lot of weight on them. It allow me to lift and absorb over rocks and roots. In the corners I try to steer a bit with my hips and weigh the pedals appropriately, with some weight on the bars.
> 
> I also shift towards the front of the saddle on steeper climbs, and have my arms bent to compensate for the front end being taller going up. With 455mm stays I have no traction issues, my front end tracks perfectly, and it just light enough that lifting the front doesn't come with any drama.


I agree w the feet and heels down. But i do put weight into the hands on braking obviously. 
this is where you dont want your hands down by your knee caps. Ideally you have a body position that allows your arms to more or less match the angle of the descent (Be parallel). 
cant really do that if the bars are too low. Dont worry about going over the front as you should have a slack enough bike with enough reach to keep you back of the front wheel.


----------



## In2bikes (5 mo ago)

jeremy3220 said:


> My bar height is set up totally based on getting my hands neutrally weighted while standing. This ends up putting my bars about 1.5" below my saddle. I position the saddle fore and aft to get the seated weight balance right.
> 
> I guess what feels neutrally weighted is a bit different for everyone. However a few riders I know have their bars at or above saddle height which puts them in an upright position. Looks comfortable on flat ground but on the climbs they're hanging off the back. Being able to get your weight on the bars and front wheel when you need to is a necessity for me. The rear suspension really firms up once you're not hanging off the back. It also allows for easily dynamically weight the front on descents. Once your bars get so high you can end up in passenger mode, like driving from the back seat.


most tall guys have too high of a cg. So the sta has to be perfectly matched to a long enough rear center to keep the bike balanced in a climb (prevent a loop out). Not many frames are big enough ft and rr for us tall guys. So there is always a compromise. My current bike has a great seated flat pedalling position. But its too short in the reach and not slack enough to be optimal for the gnarlier stuff. Yet its also too short in the rear for climbing or any high speed stability. So what it really is, is a giant tall guy riding two sizes down and having a responsive flickable poppy bike. Im just looking for the next bike in the quiver.

im kinda pissed really when i see a medium height guy riding a bike 470 reach and rear center of 445. On 29er. They just fit between ft and rr like a glove and dont change body position much to climb or descend. 

me im like castro where he needs to move way way back for descents. But when he does. The front of the bike works. Then on a climb its move completely forward and ride the tip of the seat ( course pedalling position starts to fail then.


----------



## In2bikes (5 mo ago)

Feel like i just joined the tall guy support group


----------



## In2bikes (5 mo ago)

More food for thought. Hits the nail on the head! Why cant the manufacturers get it!



https://www.pinkbike.com/news/importance-of-handlebar-height-mountain-bike.html


----------



## Grindup (9 mo ago)

In2bikes said:


> Feel like i just joined the tall guy support group


Hello. My name is Grindup and I am a tall guy.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

In2bikes said:


> More food for thought. Hits the nail on the head! Why cant the manufacturers get it!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just wanted to mention that is Taj Mihelich that did the art there. Of previous Terrible One fame. Awesome guy.


----------



## car_nut15 (Apr 18, 2018)

Thoughts on the new 2023 Norco Fluid? Now comes in XXL and has 540mm Reach and 653 Stack. Seriously thinking about ordering one.


----------



## Dan Zulu (Jul 5, 2008)

It wasn’t cheap, but the stack on this semi-custom Yo Eddy feels sooooo nice while cruising. 

The photo was vertical before the upload, and I don’t know why the forum software rotated it.


----------



## T-ROM (9 mo ago)

car_nut15 said:


> Thoughts on the new 2023 Norco Fluid? Now comes in XXL and has 540mm Reach and 653 Stack. Seriously thinking about ordering one.


I just became aware of the new Norco Fluid XXL and am really interested in getting one myself. Previously the Transition Sentinel XXL was kind of my reference point for the actual largest frame I could get, but the Fluid has is actually a bit larger on reach, stack and head tube length. For me it's also a bonus that the Fluid is a little less slack on HTA and lower travel - I'd probably be over-bike with a Sentinel on the trails I ride. 

Post a follow up on your thoughts if you end up pulling the trigger on the Fluid!


----------



## geofharries (Jun 2, 2006)

Another example.


----------



## Pisgah (Feb 24, 2006)

geofharries said:


> View attachment 2012764
> 
> Another example.


No way anyone can comfortably ride a bike like that.


----------



## KThaxton (Jun 4, 2009)

That seat tube is hanging on for dear life!

Frame size appears to not be the biggest.....whatever size that is, unless it is just my eyes.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Get a dirtysixxer.


----------



## In2bikes (5 mo ago)

Pisgah said:


> No way anyone can comfortably ride a bike like that.


sure they just ride steep climbs out of the saddle!!!


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

geofharries said:


> Another example.


Disagree. That's a too-small bike with a flagpole of a seatpost put in.


----------



## Ray Lee (Aug 17, 2007)

the XXL for sale pics and even the "post you bike thread" here is littered with trial, AM, enduro, and park bikes with saddle to bar drop like an XC race bike... even race oriented road bikes have riser stems in many of the photos. 

just not enough tall folks to justify the cost of designing them them. *also get a kick out of people reading/studying reviews by 150lbs riders on medium bikes and thinking that means anything at all for us on the same model but in XXL.


----------



## Ray Lee (Aug 17, 2007)

That looks extra crazy... but Kona has a pretty low stack hight. I looked at getting the Process 153 and the XL had a 515mm reach but only a 630mm stack I ended up buying a Privateer 161 515 reach and 652mm stack (FYI went with 20mm riser bar and after getting it set up to feel perfect noticed that my bars were even/maybe just a hair lower than the saddle hight.... just like every medium I have ever seen. ****other than XC race machines that a totally different thing/reason. 



geofharries said:


> View attachment 2012764
> 
> Another example.


----------



## fsr29erATX (Jan 10, 2009)

Couple points that may help. 
Lower bottom bracket increases effective stack. Find the low bikes, they'll probably have more stack.. sit in instead of on top.. 
Steeper head tube can 'reduce' effective stack, the more raked out, the less it's propping up the front end. Don't get me wrong, still good to have a slack head tube, longer wheelbase, but just saying a 150 fork on a 65 will sit higher than the same fork on a 63. Slack ht can also affect reach if your steerer is long.
Longer fork specifically, axle to crown, increases stack. Longer travel usually means longer axle to crown but not always depending on the mfr. Measure it first. 
Too much front sag will reduce stack. 
Best to buy your own fork and cut the streerer yourself.. also, a little over forking on an XL or XXL frame won't affect the steering as much as a small frame, it's longer. So Definitely overfork it.. but don't go crazy.. 
A longer steerer and longer fork looks far better than a crazy high stem or high-rise bar.. to a point.. too much exposed steerer is also bad.. 
Design engineers are apparently all short who are jealous of us tall folk, they want to punish us so we'll go otb more.. have hand and wrist pain.. have back pain.. it's purposely done to inflict injury and harm. Kidding.. but not kidding... 
More, You can run a 2.6 in tire front and a 2.35 in back to get a little rise. 
Let manufacturers know their xl and XXL bikes suck if their geometry is bad.. Post it on Twitter, post it on their websites, post it on forums, tell them directly. 

Side note, same issue on road bikes, surly riser drop bar.. it's a life saver..


----------



## CLDSDL43 (Sep 15, 2021)

I think that until frame builders or designers heavily involved in the process are 6'-7" (I'll use that height being what I am) we will not see good fitting frames for us. Or at least get more input from us tall folks. 
We are a small portion of the market.
Ben Cathro is our hope!


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Cathro sized down on his new megatower. Not sure he's your guy.


----------



## CLDSDL43 (Sep 15, 2021)

jeremy3220 said:


> Cathro sized down on his new megatower. Not sure he's your guy.


If I rode downhill like he does I might do the same.
I'm guessing it helps to have a guy that size riding for the team to keep at least a few big bikes going.
I remember KHS had a tall team racer and if not mistaken it helped for making the bnt 29er.
Tall riders still screwed in general for bike fit.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

jeremy3220 said:


> Cathro sized down on his new megatower. Not sure he's your guy.


I tend to size down too, but really that's a handling thing. The difference in stack generally isn't huge anyway.


----------



## T-ROM (9 mo ago)

Ray Lee said:


> also get a kick out of people reading/studying reviews by 150lbs riders on medium bikes and thinking that means anything at all for us on the same model but in XXL.


Lol this describes me perfectly. Still gonna keep doing it though.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Chain stays are too damn short.


----------



## Ray Lee (Aug 17, 2007)

T-ROM said:


> Lol this describes me perfectly. Still gonna keep doing it though.


LOL so do I, maybe even more AFTER I buy the bike or part... like driving by car accident and just having to look. 

OT but I also shoot archery... and seeing "famous" archery "you tubers" at a big 3d event I attended and actually seeing how they shot then seeing the video edit posted a few weeks latter really brought all YouTube reviews into perspective


----------



## CLDSDL43 (Sep 15, 2021)

On a positive note I just noticed. 
I have a 2019 santacruz hightower (6-7") tall. Looking at geometry on the latest version the xxl headtube went from 130-160mm and the reach/stack has increased significantly. 
I'll take that!!


----------



## plv (Aug 6, 2016)

I'm considering ordering a custom frame based on Yeti Arc. Saddle top to BB distance is 850mm.


----------



## CLDSDL43 (Sep 15, 2021)

plv said:


> I'm considering ordering a custom frame based on Yeti Arc. Saddle top to BB distance is 850mm.
> 
> View attachment 2016819


Whats your height/inseam.


----------



## plv (Aug 6, 2016)

CLDSDL43 said:


> Whats your height/inseam.


6'4", 37"


----------



## fsr29erATX (Jan 10, 2009)

plv said:


> I'm considering ordering a custom frame based on Yeti Arc. Saddle top to BB distance is 850mm.
> 
> View attachment 2016819


Nice numbers on that custom, that would be sweet. But Just curious, rather than go custom, have you looked at the xl trek Roscoe (2022 7+ model only)? Semi-Similar geo. Downside is it's a Trek, but.. they have the frame standalone for $750, available. I test rode the xl at the shop, felt really decent, Same height.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

plv said:


> I'm considering ordering a custom frame based on Yeti Arc. Saddle top to BB distance is 850mm.
> 
> View attachment 2016819


Hard tail? What kind of riding do you do?

Seems like something you could get stock.


----------



## plv (Aug 6, 2016)

fsr29erATX said:


> Nice numbers on that custom, that would be sweet. But Just curious, rather than go custom, have you looked at the xl trek Roscoe (2022 7+ model only)? Semi-Similar geo. Downside is it's a Trek, but.. they have the frame standalone for $750, available. I test rode the xl at the shop, felt really decent, Same height.


Surprisingly there's much better/bigger choice of hardtails than fs for bigger guys. Roscoe looks interesting and the specs are very close to Nukeproof Scout 290.


----------



## plv (Aug 6, 2016)

alexbn921 said:


> Hard tail? What kind of riding do you do?


Yeah, a hardtail sound like a step back.
Lots of technical stuff in South FL, almost no elevation, don't need much suspension travel and steep fork angles. A cross-country bike would do if it had a lot of stack.


----------



## plv (Aug 6, 2016)

alexbn921 said:


> Seems like something you could get stock.


True.


----------



## geofharries (Jun 2, 2006)

I’m 6’3” with a 37” inseam, so in the same neighborhood leg length wise.

In your drawing, there’s a 495mm seat tube. I had a Kona Process with a 485mm seat tube and it was far too short. Here’s how the Process looked with my saddle at full height.








You may want to add some extra length to that seat tube to not create a giant lever on the frame.

The Process had a slacker seat angle than your design, but it could still be something worth taking into account.


----------

