I'm a big fan of using height (cm) x 2.55 to get a starting point for reach. Seth is about 162cm (5'4), so x 2.55, that calls for a reach of 413. He settled on 409 which is right in that ballpark. I'm 171cm (just under 5'8). That same formula calculates my reach at 436mm. I'm running at 435mm and it feels pretty good--450 felt stretched. Keep in mind, I'm solely focused on descending. On the climbs, I didn't really prefer 435 or 450 or vice versa.
Same height here. I like canyon's because they have 435 reach S bikes, do you know any other brand right there? 👀 Thinking about getting a new one soon.
@@endianAphones Yep! My small Forbidden Dreadnought set up as a mullet (with the Ziggy link) has a 435 reach. I love that bike! Bike check vid -> ruclips.net/video/Rp8hJU3ik9Y/видео.html I also just recently modified my medium Orbea Rise from a 140/140 66 degree 29er to a 160/160 64 degree mullet and the mod moved the reach from 450 to 435. 👌
Potential problem there is once your effective stem moves too short or negative in relation to the steer tube axis, it could get twitchy at speed. ... potentially.
I have been watching the cockpit get longer each year and could not figure out why. I have stuck with a bike that has a 420mm reach size medium frame and I'm 5'9". This gives me a very close to RAD fit and I really like it.
Really interesting and well said. I'm about 183 cm and just sized up to a 505 mm bike, which might sound crazy but it's been surprisingly comfortable and easy to move around. My last bike was 445, which felt just a touch short, and after testing out 475, 490, and 515 I eventually went with the 505. I definitely see the appeal of shorter bikes, and actually think that I could comfortably fit both 450 and 505. I guess it just comes down to preference. One funny stat is the bike I'd been borrowing for the last few months, a size medium Nicolai, had a reach of 490 mm lol. Basically was an XL
I think in part it depends on where and what you are riding as well as your riding style. I ride the shore, and as I am old and slow, I prefer maneuverability to outright speed.
Effective bar height on most bikes is just too low. I run my bars with ~100mm rise and it has transformed the bike. My legs now support more of my weight and I have better bike-body separation as a result. MTB need more MX riding body positioning and less XC/road setup. How many bikes do you see where the seat at full extension is above the handlebars? What kind of position is that putting the rider in when standing and descending? They are too far over the front of the bike when descending. Bikes got longer and slacker to compensate.
Ya, I ride with 35mm ride bars & 3 risers for that very reason. Gives way more confidence on the steep stuff too. The downhillers know what they're doing!
I am 177cm, x2.55 = 451mm suggested reach. I am absolute beginner and I think it will take years for me to start downhills with jumps :) anyway, looking for good drills, I found website of Lee. But I found it after I bought Norco Fluid HT 1 of size L, reach 470, and RAD 860. My personal RAD should be 810. I turned handlebar upsize down, same with stem, moved 10mm spacer to top, and now RAD is perfect 810. I also ordered SQLab 16deg handlebar. I have 16 degree arms, naturally. I am just wondering… Is that better to have M frame size instead of L frame size and avoid hacks? In theory, it looks like moving butts behind seat during DH jumps is easier with smaller frames. Anyway, if I made mistake with size L instead of M wouldn’t worry too much it may takes years till I understand if it is good fit or not. Indeed when I bought it I was thinking about easy forest roads and not about bunny hops, then started looking;g for basic drills and found that bunny hop and still stand are recommended basics for even road bikers. Do we have similar “size down” thing for road bikes, gravel bikes? Uphill vs. Downhill? For sure this is very valuable theory but what is its’ boundaries, applicability? UPDATE: I decided to measure myself “reach”, it is per manufacturer specs, 470mm. Then I measured it again, after I put front wheel into bike stand, which puts wheel about 25mm higher: reach is about 450mm!!! So, many folks upgrade factory X-Fusion 120mm fork onto RockShox 140mm and even 150mm, then such upgrade may lower “reach”: from 470 to 450? And why do we use centre of top of head tube to measure reach instead of middle of handlebars? Also, HT vs FS.
177 x 2.55 = 451 I think looking at bikes sized with a reach of around 450mm is a good start. You can than zero in on what works for you (including looking at RAD) using bar height/backsweep, stem length & the number of spacers on your steer tube.
@@IDoBlues - yes, typo from me; 451mm; this brand sells size M with reach 440, and size L with 470; I bought size L. By turning handlebar upside down I was able to make RAD perfect 810mm instead of previous 860. And I measured “reach”: it is exact 470. Then I put bike into front-wheel stand, and… reach became approx. 450!!! So, indeed, in few years (as many people do with this brand) I can upgrade fork from 120mm X-Fusion onto 140mm-150mm “something” - because I measured reach with front wheel about 2cm above floor. Interesting… but I am still wondering which role frame plays, because I am using frame size L and I am able to adjust “settings” to size M…
I have question.. i ride xc bike and im suppose to ride Medium but my current bike is small.. my question is, is it ok to have a long seatpost? but my seatpost does not exceed the minimum insertion Length? will it not stress my frame particularly its seatpost clamp?
I've usually sized down because I am long of torso and short of leg. I went with a L Surly Karate Monkey and I really should have gone with the M. I didn't realized that Hardtail reach is effectively longer than fullsus length. Because of my mistake with the KM, I thought I wanted a M Ibis Ripley AF, but after testing both, I chose the L. The M was more playful and BMXy, but the front kept popping on the climbs, (Even when I leaned over.) The L is a better climber and still a fun ride. But it is a really low slung frame. (I can run a 220 dropper, but had to fight to squeeze a 150 on my Surly.) Things have gotten so much better in the past 30+ years, but one thing has stayed the same. Shops/Demo guys still try to put people on bikes that are too big.
the case with Jack Moir is definitely different. the canyon strive got really huge, and most reviews recommend sizing down on it compared to the previous model. looking at the reach, the large on the 2019-2022 version of the strive is about the same as the reach on the medium of the new 2023 version. even the sizing chart changed, the new versions size names are just one up from what one would expect.
I'm 174 cm so my optimal reach would be around 435. Looking at a YT Jeffsy and their medium comes in at 455 reach. Is that way too big according to this method or is it within an ok range? Going with their small would be right on 435 but scared it would be too small in other ways.
I'm 171 cm and used to ride a reach of 450mm (medium Orbea Rise). I found that a bit too long and really liked moving down to a 435mm reach (small Forbidden Dreadnought, and converted Rise down to 435mm). For me, moving from a medium to a small felt great. I also ended up on a small Commencal DH bike (reach 435mm). You are a touch taller and that 455mm YT might feel good--seems in the zone to me. But I don't think a reach of 435 would be crazy short either.
@@IDoBlues Thanks for the reply and the information, much appreciated! Yeah, definitely seems to be in the zone for me then. So great to be able to have this in mind, really helps when looking at sizing. Grew up riding BMX, then dirt bike (mostly in the streets) and then some DH. Think I would enjoy the smaller size instead of taking the recommended medium which for some brands have a reach of 475 (expect YT).
I bought a Longer/Lower/Slacker trail bike in 2021 and for my style of riding, it's just a bit too much. The long reach and steep seat tube angle has me sitting further forward which puts more strain on my hands/wrists. Not to mention the slacker HTA is ungainly during tight, slow speed tech climbs. I'm about to list the bike for sale as I've replaced it with a 2014 Trek Fuel EX8. Much more comfortable riding position and the steaper HTA is helpful on the slow, tight, hand cut trails I normally ride. It seems like modern mountain bikes are being built around fast, flowy, machine built trails these days. That's fine for folks that ride those trail, but I personally hit those trails much less often than the old school hand cut trails. 68 degree HTA and 74 STA is about where I find comfortable.
I'm 194cm, and I love my 490mm reach bikes. 490+/-10 is absolutely perfect, although the manufacturers always seem to recommend 510+ for me. Now chainstays, that's different for me. 440 is the absolute minimum for me, my Tyee is 445 and that's just about cutting it. 450 would be perfect for me. Headangle always around 63.5-64, I really don't like it any steeper or slacker. (which is why my Tyee has a ZEB, measured the headangle at 63.8) Last time I rode a bike with 465 reach it felt mega unstable, although it had 455 chainstays, because emtb. That really wasn't comfy imo.
I just went from a 2018 Large SB 5.5 to a 2022 Large Pivot Firebird , same cockpit (40mm i9 and 800 mm OneUp 20mm rise bars). I'm 6' and was concerned about what the content of this video covers considering the geo updates in the past 5 years. The firebird is only 1mm longer in chain stay but 28mm longer wheelbase and nearly same increase in reach. I think my long/lanky arms and legs actually fit better on the new bike. I feel instantly (ive had the firebird for 4 weeks and am in MN... so slow tight basement laps /jib training) more centered and the front to rear control is super intuitive. I doubt this is the case for every body type / bike brand combo and I also think more advanced riders are better at using a smaller bike to its potential instead of having the reduction in stability scare them (novice rider). Brands are catering to the growth market and letting the knowledgeable / veteran riders crunch the numbers, demo and figure the down sizing game out.
I assume that bikes were getting longer because of head tube angle. I've always thought a short reach was better for control and raked out forks are for stability.
The rad sizing is rad! I have bought and sold about 8 bikes last year and learned a lot about sizing and geometry differences. The RAD measurement seemed to be on point with my experiences
Get what ever fits you. I see Artherton bikes offer 20 sizes, but the yonlu make trail and enduro, dh full suspension bikes. I have a Large Geometron G1, I am 181cm, 82cm groin to ankle leg length, 25cm from inside elbow to wrist, and from inside elbow to armpit. So 50cm total arm length. I have around 490 effective reach, with 3x 100mm spacers under stem, 35mm bar rise, 800mm wide bar. This is what works for me.
@@IDoBlues well I'm never really sure about how to measure the reach, center of the bars at stem, center of the bars at the grips, center of the fork where the stem clamps, center of the top of the head tube? I'm 170cm, just a bit over 5'7". And the reach, if you measure at the center of the bars, where the stem clamps, which I think is the best reasonable way to measure, is about 440mm. This is on a 17", so I guess medium frame. It's a 1996 Gary Fischer with like 50 or 60mm stem.
Kind of the same situation I was in but a little bit different. I’m coming from a 2016 Niner rip nine carbon and I recently broke a part on it that you can’t replace so I had to get a new bike. I went with a new Fezzari LSP. Based on their 32 point fit numbers, I was supposed to write a medium so they sent me a medium and immediately I could tell the bike was too big when I compared the numbers of my old bike to their small it does have a bigger reach because it’s a bigger bike, but it’s not in the extreme Coming from a full trail bike to a Enduro bike should for sure have different numbers but not in the extreme that they were putting me at will see how it goes. I get the bike next week.
I’m the complete opposite bikes have always felt too short for me. I’m loving the longer lower slacker style. My bike has a 475 mm reach right now is just perfect.
@@IDoBlues im 6 feet 230 pounds with long gorilla arms , at 475 mm reach i use a 40mm stem , 50 would be to much . I get what you’re saying though some large frames have a 490 mm reach wich is insane .
@@justgo4033 At 6' tall, if you asked me (which I know you didn't), I'd start you on something at 465mm to see how it feels and go from there. The 475 you landed sounds bang on. I can imagine 490+ would start to feel pretty point-and-shoot.
I’m the same way. Bike always feels short. I’m 5’8 and always ride a medium. My new roscoe is a m/l. It feels way better but I’m built kinda weird, real short inseam but all my height through my back
I agree getting the right geo is crucial but like you said its not just reach. HTA, STA, stack and other measurements factor in. I went from a large size to a medium size (same model bike) and it made a huge difference for the better.
I was recommended a medium Dreadnought (reach=462)....I'm so glad I went with the small (reach=435 as a mullet). I'm 5'7-5'8. I would have been swimming in that medium.
Great video. Sad to say I feel I’ve found out about all the geometry post bike buy. I bought a XL and should have gotten at least a large. 😞 now the decision of get rid of it for a L or rock the XL until it’s upgrade time. 🤔
Sometimes you have to trust the rad, I'm 6ft my bike has a reach of 494cm Feels stable but also flickable... The bike rad is 86cm my RAD measurement is 89cm, so despite the 494 reach on paper this bike is perfectly sized, few CM of RAD negative for that lively feel...
I like this calculation weight x 2.5. It's been dead on for me. If you are still adjusting after 2.55 use the lower number. There still may be micro adjustments.
A) medium large etc means nothing just like shirt sizing. Every brand is different and claim a different ideal. B) Seth is basically doing dirtjumping and trials, he never does chunk, 3m drops or exceeds 40kph (in what he shows us) RAD is for maximum strength/agility when lifting the bars up. If you never hop or jump its not a guide. You should see your bars and front axle inline when you look down. If you sit down xc ride you'll need less reach. If you stand up sprint or DH you'll notice the bars/axle don't line up so you need mor reach. You have to be realistic about how you ride an what you need. Jack Moir has to pedal uphill for 5-10x longer than he actually rides down. The climbing isn't timed/scored but it is a race as they have windows to meet or they get a DQ.
A) Totally agree. Always go by the numbers. B) Seth's custom is a hardtail (though not a dirt jumper), but he rips on tough trails. He flies through Berm Park (albeit, mostly flow trails), but he destroys jank when he travels. I've seen him crush trails is Whistler and on the Shore that are as tech as it gets. A good fitting RAD is great for jumping & hopping, but also for navigating tight tech trails. That's why Jack Moir was sizing down on select EWS races.
@@stevebennett3587 Right on. I would have suggested a 465-470 reach...sounds like you landed close to that. I noticed a huge difference going from 450 to 435.
@@IDoBlues 🤔this longer geometry does not suit everyone, also the height of the seatpost/dropper increases reach also🤔I think 460mm for me is enough, and its still playfull👌just measured the reach with my dropper at maximum height for pedaling 469.9mm reach👌
You might not even need a different bike! Try a shorter 30mm stem and higher rise bar rather than using more spacers. Most don't dial there bike in. Touch points are vital.
I do caution on too short a stem when looking at reach. You want to make sure the stem, bar & rider combo leaves your hands +15-25mm ahead of the steer tube axis or it can get twitchy at speed.
I’m 5,8 short arms short legs long torso.. I feel so much comfortable riding a small size bike.. My height is recommended for a medium, My rad is 440 is recommended for a small..
I'm pretty much 5'8 too. All three of my bikes now have a reach of 435-440 mm....just feels right. My Enduro & DH bikes are smalls. My eBike is a medium that had a reach of 450 until I converted it to a higher travel mullet and now it has a reach of 436.
Yeah sure at some point longer is too long for a given riding style/type of trail. But don't tell me shorter make the bike better than anything else i've ridden before. I've been riding too short bike for close to two decade. Always upsizing compromising with components etc... Now you have the choice.
Agreed. There is too short. I like height (cm) x 2.55 to serve as a starting point and then adjust from there based on body type, terrain & riding style.
At 5'11, I wouldn't call 465mm long though...in fact, I'd call it perfect (using theory). Using the height (cm) x 2.55 formula, you'd be on a 460mm reach. 465 is right there. I'm just under 5'8 and the bike shops were recommending a 462 reach for me (too long!). At Seth's 5'4, it'd call for 413 and he went with 409 (pretty close).
@@IDoBlues You're right. I guess I should have added that my preference is 480 reach. If I go under 465 I feel extremely cramped and have back pain. I remember just over 5 years ago a "large" bike would have sub 450 reach. I'm so happy for modern geometry.
@@MrChadLedford That's interesting. I've had 2 back surgeries so I'm always thinking about back-friendly setups. Now that I think of it, my 435 & 450 reach bikes are easier on my back than my old 419 (but they have more travel too). But I didn't notice any detriment of moving from 450 to 435.
I am 5'9 my hardtail is 26inch and it fits me perfectly just add a riser handlebar with 720-760mm. It can maneuver and move around with confidence. My Full suspension is a medium it fits perfectly too as i made my fork adjustable lower or higher and find the reach better rather than going 450mm reach and shorter reach climbs way better and more control in descending. Longer reach is actually more on psychological when in fact its proper sizing is the key
Seth is girl sized tho. Like i'm 163cm and he's about that same height. This is why i take his advice. Also i was at region's largest bicycle store recently, absolutely gargantuan, and WTF THERE IS LITERALLY NOT A SINGLE BIKE I FEEL COMFORTABLE ON WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED SINCE THE 90S, DO YOU LOT THINK SHORTER WOMEN JUST DISAPPEARED OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH WHAT THE HELL! What am i supposed to ride a fixie child bike? Also how did they get so damn heavy, bloody hell, i don't need a suspension fork, i don't need disc brakes, like how do you even build an alu bike that i can't even lift, why. I can carry a 90s steel bike EASILY. No i'm not speaking electric, i don't have money for that, i can pedal.
Ya, but he didn't shrink but recently sized down. You don't need a suspension fork? That's not really mountain biking....what I'm talking about here probably doesn't apply to what you are looking for.
Trend of going smaller ?! 😅😂 everybody’s still on too small of bikes ! chain-stays need to be longer ,bottom brackets need to be higher and cranks need to be shorter
I’m 6’ and follow the RAD philosophy. I’m comfortable on 450-470mm reach bikes, with ~600mm stack. The industry wants me to go 470-490mm, which feels sluggish. Longer chain stays and steeper HTA can be paired with shorter reach for stability and leverage. Edit: my RAD increased by 0.5” going from 760mm bars to 800mm bars
@@mrvapor4791 That makes sense. ...and is something I never do (call me lazy). I'm mostly focused on descending blue & black trails. In that situation, a safe setup for shoulders is having a bike with a neutral RAD (which takes reach, stack and cockpit into consideration) and a bar width that is your wingspan (cm) x between 4.4 and 4.2. That reduces impingement and maximizes your ability to use your strong upper back muscles instead of the more vulnerable smaller shoulder muscles.
And then, one day, they will realize that (trench digging) way too LOW BB is also a terrible idea for regular riders. In the future, they will discover that Schrader valves are FAR superior Presta. Oh ya, Mullet is more fun. Let me know when the rest of the bike world catches up.
I'm 177cm when wearing shoes (actual is 174.5cm lol), which is how I measure my height with regards to measuring bike fit since most of us don't ride barefoot. I ride a size L Marin San Quentin with a +8mm RAD thanks to a 150mm fork and a 30mm rise bar. In my case, sizing slightly up made a hell of a difference and I'm riding faster and more comfortably with good posture. Geo numbers are 64.3HTA, 74.3STA, 459mm reach, and 614±mm stack since I forgot that one. With these numbers, my bike feels like it was custom made for me. My old bike was a 2014 Marin Attack Trail size M with a 412.5mm reach; possibly 410mm since I put a 170mm fork on it. It took 2 years before I got the geo right on it without measuring because it just felt awkward all the time. Either I had to ride old school leant back all the time with one setup or the bike would pull forward under me because the stack is too tall on the next setup. I eventually got it right but by that time the frame gave out from all the enduro/DH abuse it got from me and its past owners. We don't have test rides here except for one event per year so I don't have the opportunity to just test a bike I like. I actually have to take these measurements just so I can have a bike that I actually want to own forever. I even went so far as to use Atherton Bikes' custom geo calculator; it said I'm suited for 464mm of reach which the San Quentin in stock 130mm form had, and I also used Norco Ride Aligned to set up my cockpit and fork settings. That way, I didn't have to experiment much and just rode with the setup they gave me. I don't know if the trend is now going back to shorter bikes, but with my sizing being very much in the middle of the 455-464 range (M or L depending on the manufacturer), one thing is for sure. Get the bike that actually fits your measurements or feels the best to ride if you have the opportunity to test them.
@@mangoshake i ask because i am 176cm without shoes on a size L bike with 472mm reach, 636mm stack, 35mm rise bars and a 35mm stem. it feels great and not too far from your current setup
Totally agree. I think we can get some insight from what they are doing and why, but even not just for the pros, picking a bike for racing calls for different criteria.
I've been riding for decades and have never bothered with all this Reach rubbish..just sit on the bike and you should know if its for you or not...Ha !!
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm a big fan of using height (cm) x 2.55 to get a starting point for reach. Seth is about 162cm (5'4), so x 2.55, that calls for a reach of 413. He settled on 409 which is right in that ballpark. I'm 171cm (just under 5'8). That same formula calculates my reach at 436mm. I'm running at 435mm and it feels pretty good--450 felt stretched. Keep in mind, I'm solely focused on descending. On the climbs, I didn't really prefer 435 or 450 or vice versa.
Same height here. I like canyon's because they have 435 reach S bikes, do you know any other brand right there? 👀
Thinking about getting a new one soon.
@@endianAphones Yep! My small Forbidden Dreadnought set up as a mullet (with the Ziggy link) has a 435 reach. I love that bike! Bike check vid -> ruclips.net/video/Rp8hJU3ik9Y/видео.html
I also just recently modified my medium Orbea Rise from a 140/140 66 degree 29er to a 160/160 64 degree mullet and the mod moved the reach from 450 to 435. 👌
Holy shit 5'4" 💀
Seth is 5' 4"
Ahhhhhh....thanks.
Im 5'5 i used 27.5 medium , mullet
Maneuverability ftw! Although I'm curious to try a medium with a short stem and bars rolled back for comparison.
Potential problem there is once your effective stem moves too short or negative in relation to the steer tube axis, it could get twitchy at speed. ... potentially.
I have been watching the cockpit get longer each year and could not figure out why. I have stuck with a bike that has a 420mm reach size medium frame and I'm 5'9". This gives me a very close to RAD fit and I really like it.
Really interesting and well said. I'm about 183 cm and just sized up to a 505 mm bike, which might sound crazy but it's been surprisingly comfortable and easy to move around. My last bike was 445, which felt just a touch short, and after testing out 475, 490, and 515 I eventually went with the 505. I definitely see the appeal of shorter bikes, and actually think that I could comfortably fit both 450 and 505. I guess it just comes down to preference. One funny stat is the bike I'd been borrowing for the last few months, a size medium Nicolai, had a reach of 490 mm lol. Basically was an XL
Great that you got a chance to try all those sizes out!
I think in part it depends on where and what you are riding as well as your riding style. I ride the shore, and as I am old and slow, I prefer maneuverability to outright speed.
Old slow dudes on the Shore!
Effective bar height on most bikes is just too low. I run my bars with ~100mm rise and it has transformed the bike. My legs now support more of my weight and I have better bike-body separation as a result. MTB need more MX riding body positioning and less XC/road setup. How many bikes do you see where the seat at full extension is above the handlebars? What kind of position is that putting the rider in when standing and descending? They are too far over the front of the bike when descending. Bikes got longer and slacker to compensate.
Ya, I ride with 35mm ride bars & 3 risers for that very reason. Gives way more confidence on the steep stuff too. The downhillers know what they're doing!
I like the Descendants T-Shirt. 🤘🏻
🤘
I am 177cm, x2.55 = 451mm suggested reach. I am absolute beginner and I think it will take years for me to start downhills with jumps :) anyway, looking for good drills, I found website of Lee. But I found it after I bought Norco Fluid HT 1 of size L, reach 470, and RAD 860. My personal RAD should be 810.
I turned handlebar upsize down, same with stem, moved 10mm spacer to top, and now RAD is perfect 810. I also ordered SQLab 16deg handlebar. I have 16 degree arms, naturally.
I am just wondering… Is that better to have M frame size instead of L frame size and avoid hacks? In theory, it looks like moving butts behind seat during DH jumps is easier with smaller frames.
Anyway, if I made mistake with size L instead of M wouldn’t worry too much it may takes years till I understand if it is good fit or not. Indeed when I bought it I was thinking about easy forest roads and not about bunny hops, then started looking;g for basic drills and found that bunny hop and still stand are recommended basics for even road bikers.
Do we have similar “size down” thing for road bikes, gravel bikes? Uphill vs. Downhill? For sure this is very valuable theory but what is its’ boundaries, applicability?
UPDATE: I decided to measure myself “reach”, it is per manufacturer specs, 470mm. Then I measured it again, after I put front wheel into bike stand, which puts wheel about 25mm higher: reach is about 450mm!!! So, many folks upgrade factory X-Fusion 120mm fork onto RockShox 140mm and even 150mm, then such upgrade may lower “reach”: from 470 to 450? And why do we use centre of top of head tube to measure reach instead of middle of handlebars? Also, HT vs FS.
177 x 2.55 = 451
I think looking at bikes sized with a reach of around 450mm is a good start. You can than zero in on what works for you (including looking at RAD) using bar height/backsweep, stem length & the number of spacers on your steer tube.
@@IDoBlues - yes, typo from me; 451mm; this brand sells size M with reach 440, and size L with 470; I bought size L. By turning handlebar upside down I was able to make RAD perfect 810mm instead of previous 860. And I measured “reach”: it is exact 470. Then I put bike into front-wheel stand, and… reach became approx. 450!!! So, indeed, in few years (as many people do with this brand) I can upgrade fork from 120mm X-Fusion onto 140mm-150mm “something” - because I measured reach with front wheel about 2cm above floor.
Interesting… but I am still wondering which role frame plays, because I am using frame size L and I am able to adjust “settings” to size M…
I learned that mtb fit is personal.
Its Adaptation to simplify = responsive adjustments.
You can suggest but cant argue to anyones preference.
Im 5'5 i used 27.5 medium , mullet
I have question..
i ride xc bike and im suppose to ride Medium but my current bike is small..
my question is,
is it ok to have a long seatpost? but my seatpost does not exceed the minimum insertion Length?
will it not stress my frame particularly its seatpost clamp?
Honestly, I don't know anything about BMX.
I've usually sized down because I am long of torso and short of leg. I went with a L Surly Karate Monkey and I really should have gone with the M. I didn't realized that Hardtail reach is effectively longer than fullsus length.
Because of my mistake with the KM, I thought I wanted a M Ibis Ripley AF, but after testing both, I chose the L. The M was more playful and BMXy, but the front kept popping on the climbs, (Even when I leaned over.) The L is a better climber and still a fun ride. But it is a really low slung frame. (I can run a 220 dropper, but had to fight to squeeze a 150 on my Surly.)
Things have gotten so much better in the past 30+ years, but one thing has stayed the same. Shops/Demo guys still try to put people on bikes that are too big.
the case with Jack Moir is definitely different. the canyon strive got really huge, and most reviews recommend sizing down on it compared to the previous model. looking at the reach, the large on the 2019-2022 version of the strive is about the same as the reach on the medium of the new 2023 version. even the sizing chart changed, the new versions size names are just one up from what one would expect.
Yep, they keep making 'em longer. My 2018 medium is smaller than my 2022 small.
He used L size in the previous model too.
This is not the 2023 model.
ruclips.net/video/r907JnskHLk/видео.html
I'm 174 cm so my optimal reach would be around 435. Looking at a YT Jeffsy and their medium comes in at 455 reach. Is that way too big according to this method or is it within an ok range? Going with their small would be right on 435 but scared it would be too small in other ways.
I'm 171 cm and used to ride a reach of 450mm (medium Orbea Rise). I found that a bit too long and really liked moving down to a 435mm reach (small Forbidden Dreadnought, and converted Rise down to 435mm). For me, moving from a medium to a small felt great. I also ended up on a small Commencal DH bike (reach 435mm). You are a touch taller and that 455mm YT might feel good--seems in the zone to me. But I don't think a reach of 435 would be crazy short either.
@@IDoBlues Thanks for the reply and the information, much appreciated! Yeah, definitely seems to be in the zone for me then. So great to be able to have this in mind, really helps when looking at sizing. Grew up riding BMX, then dirt bike (mostly in the streets) and then some DH. Think I would enjoy the smaller size instead of taking the recommended medium which for some brands have a reach of 475 (expect YT).
I bought a Longer/Lower/Slacker trail bike in 2021 and for my style of riding, it's just a bit too much. The long reach and steep seat tube angle has me sitting further forward which puts more strain on my hands/wrists. Not to mention the slacker HTA is ungainly during tight, slow speed tech climbs.
I'm about to list the bike for sale as I've replaced it with a 2014 Trek Fuel EX8. Much more comfortable riding position and the steaper HTA is helpful on the slow, tight, hand cut trails I normally ride. It seems like modern mountain bikes are being built around fast, flowy, machine built trails these days. That's fine for folks that ride those trail, but I personally hit those trails much less often than the old school hand cut trails. 68 degree HTA and 74 STA is about where I find comfortable.
I'm 194cm, and I love my 490mm reach bikes.
490+/-10 is absolutely perfect, although the manufacturers always seem to recommend 510+ for me.
Now chainstays, that's different for me. 440 is the absolute minimum for me, my Tyee is 445 and that's just about cutting it. 450 would be perfect for me.
Headangle always around 63.5-64, I really don't like it any steeper or slacker. (which is why my Tyee has a ZEB, measured the headangle at 63.8)
Last time I rode a bike with 465 reach it felt mega unstable, although it had 455 chainstays, because emtb. That really wasn't comfy imo.
At 194cm, using the x 2.55 formula, you'd be on a reach of 495mm which sounds like you are. Not surprising 465 felt off.
I just went from a 2018 Large SB 5.5 to a 2022 Large Pivot Firebird , same cockpit (40mm i9 and 800 mm OneUp 20mm rise bars). I'm 6' and was concerned about what the content of this video covers considering the geo updates in the past 5 years. The firebird is only 1mm longer in chain stay but 28mm longer wheelbase and nearly same increase in reach. I think my long/lanky arms and legs actually fit better on the new bike. I feel instantly (ive had the firebird for 4 weeks and am in MN... so slow tight basement laps /jib training) more centered and the front to rear control is super intuitive. I doubt this is the case for every body type / bike brand combo and I also think more advanced riders are better at using a smaller bike to its potential instead of having the reduction in stability scare them (novice rider).
Brands are catering to the growth market and letting the knowledgeable / veteran riders crunch the numbers, demo and figure the down sizing game out.
I assume that bikes were getting longer because of head tube angle. I've always thought a short reach was better for control and raked out forks are for stability.
I bought a new steering bar and adjustable stem. Now my knee wants to hit the steering bar in tight corners
Ha!
My Kona Process fits me like a glove! Short reach long wheelbase
The rad sizing is rad! I have bought and sold about 8 bikes last year and learned a lot about sizing and geometry differences. The RAD measurement seemed to be on point with my experiences
Very Cool video!
Get what ever fits you. I see Artherton bikes offer 20 sizes, but the yonlu make trail and enduro, dh full suspension bikes. I have a Large Geometron G1, I am 181cm, 82cm groin to ankle leg length, 25cm from inside elbow to wrist, and from inside elbow to armpit. So 50cm total arm length.
I have around 490 effective reach, with 3x 100mm spacers under stem, 35mm bar rise, 800mm wide bar. This is what works for me.
I just stared riding a shorter reach bike, when I first started riding it, it felt like a clown bike, but now I love it and won't go back.
What's your reach? How tall are you?
@@IDoBlues well I'm never really sure about how to measure the reach, center of the bars at stem, center of the bars at the grips, center of the fork where the stem clamps, center of the top of the head tube?
I'm 170cm, just a bit over 5'7". And the reach, if you measure at the center of the bars, where the stem clamps, which I think is the best reasonable way to measure, is about 440mm.
This is on a 17", so I guess medium frame. It's a 1996 Gary Fischer with like 50 or 60mm stem.
@@BruceChastain 1996! That's awesome!
@@IDoBlues I have a video on it if you'd like to see. ruclips.net/video/Oyv4GugLMF4/видео.html
"It's true enough." ....made me laugh.
Kind of the same situation I was in but a little bit different. I’m coming from a 2016 Niner rip nine carbon and I recently broke a part on it that you can’t replace so I had to get a new bike. I went with a new Fezzari LSP.
Based on their 32 point fit numbers, I was supposed to write a medium so they sent me a medium and immediately I could tell the bike was too big when I compared the numbers of my old bike to their small it does have a bigger reach because it’s a bigger bike, but it’s not in the extreme Coming from a full trail bike to a Enduro bike should for sure have different numbers but not in the extreme that they were putting me at will see how it goes. I get the bike next week.
Same thing happened to me. My new small is bigger than my old medium.
I’m the complete opposite bikes have always felt too short for me. I’m loving the longer lower slacker style. My bike has a 475 mm reach right now is just perfect.
Curious....how tall are you?
@@IDoBlues im 6 feet 230 pounds with long gorilla arms , at 475 mm reach i use a 40mm stem , 50 would be to much . I get what you’re saying though some large frames have a 490 mm reach wich is insane .
@@justgo4033 At 6' tall, if you asked me (which I know you didn't), I'd start you on something at 465mm to see how it feels and go from there. The 475 you landed sounds bang on. I can imagine 490+ would start to feel pretty point-and-shoot.
I’m the same way. Bike always feels short. I’m 5’8 and always ride a medium. My new roscoe is a m/l. It feels way better but I’m built kinda weird, real short inseam but all my height through my back
@@HoneyBeagle What's the reach on it?
I agree getting the right geo is crucial but like you said its not just reach. HTA, STA, stack and other measurements factor in. I went from a large size to a medium size (same model bike) and it made a huge difference for the better.
I was recommended a medium Dreadnought (reach=462)....I'm so glad I went with the small (reach=435 as a mullet). I'm 5'7-5'8. I would have been swimming in that medium.
I still say that bike looks awesome!
Great video. Sad to say I feel I’ve found out about all the geometry post bike buy. I bought a XL and should have gotten at least a large. 😞 now the decision of get rid of it for a L or rock the XL until it’s upgrade time. 🤔
I'm more and more convinced that for a good number of people using the height (cm) x 2.55 formula to get your reach is a great starting point.
Sometimes you have to trust the rad, I'm 6ft my bike has a reach of 494cm
Feels stable but also flickable...
The bike rad is 86cm my RAD measurement is 89cm, so despite the 494 reach on paper this bike is perfectly sized, few CM of RAD negative for that lively feel...
I like this calculation weight x 2.5. It's been dead on for me. If you are still adjusting after 2.55 use the lower number. There still may be micro adjustments.
Totally agree.
At 153cm always custom bikes, last one 385 reach, even seem a stretch for me...
For your height, in theory, 385 seems perfect, but I guess theory only goes so far.
A) medium large etc means nothing just like shirt sizing. Every brand is different and claim a different ideal.
B) Seth is basically doing dirtjumping and trials, he never does chunk, 3m drops or exceeds 40kph (in what he shows us)
RAD is for maximum strength/agility when lifting the bars up. If you never hop or jump its not a guide.
You should see your bars and front axle inline when you look down. If you sit down xc ride you'll need less reach. If you stand up sprint or DH you'll notice the bars/axle don't line up so you need mor reach. You have to be realistic about how you ride an what you need. Jack Moir has to pedal uphill for 5-10x longer than he actually rides down. The climbing isn't timed/scored but it is a race as they have windows to meet or they get a DQ.
A) Totally agree. Always go by the numbers.
B) Seth's custom is a hardtail (though not a dirt jumper), but he rips on tough trails. He flies through Berm Park (albeit, mostly flow trails), but he destroys jank when he travels. I've seen him crush trails is Whistler and on the Shore that are as tech as it gets.
A good fitting RAD is great for jumping & hopping, but also for navigating tight tech trails. That's why Jack Moir was sizing down on select EWS races.
Yo your 5ft 4! You need 29 XL 500mm reach and 1400mm wheelbase! Duh
🤘
185cm ride a large🤔I found on the XL, i always have to go for a 15mm shorter stem, so this time i sized down👌
What's the reach on that new large?
@@IDoBlues 🤔460mm reach, the XL was 480mm, its a ragley big al👍
@@stevebennett3587 Right on. I would have suggested a 465-470 reach...sounds like you landed close to that. I noticed a huge difference going from 450 to 435.
@@IDoBlues 🤔this longer geometry does not suit everyone, also the height of the seatpost/dropper increases reach also🤔I think 460mm for me is enough, and its still playfull👌just measured the reach with my dropper at maximum height for pedaling 469.9mm reach👌
@@stevebennett3587 Sounds great! In my opinion, the reach in standing position is the most important number. ....but I'm pretty focused on the downs.
Isn't it wonderfull? Trying out things that are a little different than what the industry is trying to push at us!
You might not even need a different bike! Try a shorter 30mm stem and higher rise bar rather than using more spacers. Most don't dial there bike in. Touch points are vital.
I do caution on too short a stem when looking at reach. You want to make sure the stem, bar & rider combo leaves your hands +15-25mm ahead of the steer tube axis or it can get twitchy at speed.
I buy large because I am a man!!! I am a large mannn!!! I am not buying a kids bike that fits me! I am a mannn!
XL only
I’m 5,8 short arms short legs long torso.. I feel so much comfortable riding a small size bike.. My height is recommended for a medium, My rad is 440 is recommended for a small..
I'm pretty much 5'8 too. All three of my bikes now have a reach of 435-440 mm....just feels right. My Enduro & DH bikes are smalls. My eBike is a medium that had a reach of 450 until I converted it to a higher travel mullet and now it has a reach of 436.
I finally decided to buy a bike a size smaller than "my size" and it feels amazing. I wish i did it a long ago.
What did you end up going with?
Size S Orbea Onna 29. I’ve been riding 1x9 geared dirt jump style frames on the trails for almost 15 years 🤣
Yeah sure at some point longer is too long for a given riding style/type of trail. But don't tell me shorter make the bike better than anything else i've ridden before. I've been riding too short bike for close to two decade. Always upsizing compromising with components etc... Now you have the choice.
Agreed. There is too short. I like height (cm) x 2.55 to serve as a starting point and then adjust from there based on body type, terrain & riding style.
Personally short bikes hurt my back. 5’11. Prefer at least 465.
At 5'11, I wouldn't call 465mm long though...in fact, I'd call it perfect (using theory). Using the height (cm) x 2.55 formula, you'd be on a 460mm reach. 465 is right there. I'm just under 5'8 and the bike shops were recommending a 462 reach for me (too long!). At Seth's 5'4, it'd call for 413 and he went with 409 (pretty close).
@@IDoBlues You're right. I guess I should have added that my preference is 480 reach. If I go under 465 I feel extremely cramped and have back pain. I remember just over 5 years ago a "large" bike would have sub 450 reach. I'm so happy for modern geometry.
@@MrChadLedford That's interesting. I've had 2 back surgeries so I'm always thinking about back-friendly setups. Now that I think of it, my 435 & 450 reach bikes are easier on my back than my old 419 (but they have more travel too). But I didn't notice any detriment of moving from 450 to 435.
I am 5'9 my hardtail is 26inch and it fits me perfectly just add a riser handlebar with 720-760mm. It can maneuver and move around with confidence. My Full suspension is a medium it fits perfectly too as i made my fork adjustable lower or higher and find the reach better rather than going 450mm reach and shorter reach climbs way better and more control in descending. Longer reach is actually more on psychological when in fact its proper sizing is the key
Seth is girl sized tho. Like i'm 163cm and he's about that same height.
This is why i take his advice.
Also i was at region's largest bicycle store recently, absolutely gargantuan, and WTF THERE IS LITERALLY NOT A SINGLE BIKE I FEEL COMFORTABLE ON WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED SINCE THE 90S, DO YOU LOT THINK SHORTER WOMEN JUST DISAPPEARED OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH WHAT THE HELL! What am i supposed to ride a fixie child bike? Also how did they get so damn heavy, bloody hell, i don't need a suspension fork, i don't need disc brakes, like how do you even build an alu bike that i can't even lift, why. I can carry a 90s steel bike EASILY. No i'm not speaking electric, i don't have money for that, i can pedal.
Ya, but he didn't shrink but recently sized down. You don't need a suspension fork? That's not really mountain biking....what I'm talking about here probably doesn't apply to what you are looking for.
Im 5'5 i used 27.5 medium , mullet
All mediums are not created equal. What's the reach on it?
@@IDoBlues 450mm reach
Trend of going smaller ?! 😅😂
everybody’s still on too small of bikes ! chain-stays need to be longer ,bottom brackets need to be higher and cranks need to be shorter
I couldn't agree with you more on cranks. I ride 155mm.
I’m 6’ and follow the RAD philosophy. I’m comfortable on 450-470mm reach bikes, with ~600mm stack. The industry wants me to go 470-490mm, which feels sluggish. Longer chain stays and steeper HTA can be paired with shorter reach for stability and leverage.
Edit: my RAD increased by 0.5” going from 760mm bars to 800mm bars
If I can bhop with my stem below my balls with arms extended at full pull back the bike fits, I am not castrating mysef to be cool 🎉
As cool as it is, I don't recommend castrating yourself.
Shorter reach = more potential for shoulder issues IMO
Not sure I agree there (if bar width is set right along with it).
@@IDoBlues I ride in an urban environment and my bars must be relatively narrow perhaps that's why.
@@mrvapor4791 In general, narrower bars are easier on the shoulders than wide ones (to a point).
@@IDoBlues If you have too short of a reach it creates a shoulder impingement when you stand up and crank.
@@mrvapor4791 That makes sense. ...and is something I never do (call me lazy). I'm mostly focused on descending blue & black trails. In that situation, a safe setup for shoulders is having a bike with a neutral RAD (which takes reach, stack and cockpit into consideration) and a bar width that is your wingspan (cm) x between 4.4 and 4.2. That reduces impingement and maximizes your ability to use your strong upper back muscles instead of the more vulnerable smaller shoulder muscles.
And then, one day, they will realize that (trench digging) way too LOW BB is also a terrible idea for regular riders. In the future, they will discover that Schrader valves are FAR superior Presta. Oh ya, Mullet is more fun. Let me know when the rest of the bike world catches up.
Mullets ARE more fun! (shorter cranks are too)
I'm 177cm when wearing shoes (actual is 174.5cm lol), which is how I measure my height with regards to measuring bike fit since most of us don't ride barefoot. I ride a size L Marin San Quentin with a +8mm RAD thanks to a 150mm fork and a 30mm rise bar.
In my case, sizing slightly up made a hell of a difference and I'm riding faster and more comfortably with good posture. Geo numbers are 64.3HTA, 74.3STA, 459mm reach, and 614±mm stack since I forgot that one. With these numbers, my bike feels like it was custom made for me.
My old bike was a 2014 Marin Attack Trail size M with a 412.5mm reach; possibly 410mm since I put a 170mm fork on it. It took 2 years before I got the geo right on it without measuring because it just felt awkward all the time. Either I had to ride old school leant back all the time with one setup or the bike would pull forward under me because the stack is too tall on the next setup. I eventually got it right but by that time the frame gave out from all the enduro/DH abuse it got from me and its past owners.
We don't have test rides here except for one event per year so I don't have the opportunity to just test a bike I like. I actually have to take these measurements just so I can have a bike that I actually want to own forever.
I even went so far as to use Atherton Bikes' custom geo calculator; it said I'm suited for 464mm of reach which the San Quentin in stock 130mm form had, and I also used Norco Ride Aligned to set up my cockpit and fork settings. That way, I didn't have to experiment much and just rode with the setup they gave me.
I don't know if the trend is now going back to shorter bikes, but with my sizing being very much in the middle of the 455-464 range (M or L depending on the manufacturer), one thing is for sure. Get the bike that actually fits your measurements or feels the best to ride if you have the opportunity to test them.
Well said.
what stem length?
@@chipaway 40mm.
@@mangoshake i ask because i am 176cm without shoes on a size L bike with 472mm reach, 636mm stack, 35mm rise bars and a 35mm stem. it feels great and not too far from your current setup
@@chipaway How's the standover?
I Ride A Med With 465 Reach My Size I Fit A Sm Or Med 😎
How tall are you?
@@IDoBlues about 5.6 im getting 165s This Summer
At 5'6, my guess is sizing to small frames, but it actually the reach that you should be looking at. Probably 430-435 or so.
seth is 5.4
Thanks! Not sure where I got 5'8. I'll cut that part out.
@@IDoBlues thanks for listening
i will sub now
Using pro racers as an example is not relevant for us mortals. You will find that these "pro's" size down specifically for racing. Fact.
Totally agree. I think we can get some insight from what they are doing and why, but even not just for the pros, picking a bike for racing calls for different criteria.
I've been riding for decades and have never bothered with all this Reach rubbish..just sit on the bike and you should know if its for you or not...Ha !!
That'll give the perfect size for cruising the parking lot every time.