How Much Reach is Too Much Reach?

gotdurt
Posts
9
Joined
5/27/2013
Location
Leander, TX US
11/19/2017 2:39pm
The bottom line is, it depends. Longer reach is stable at speed, while shorter reaches are more playful and more precise in slower, technical and tight, twistier trails. If all you ride is park or long, fast descents, then long reach is your friend, but if you ride trails that have slower, tighter sections, then you might dial it back some. I went longer and longer, to the point where my bike was a blast on vacation trips to trails where my riding was descent-biased, but a stubborn handful on my local trails... this resulted in me building a 2nd bike. As a result, I discovered that I could ride the shorter bike (425mm) faster than I could ride the longer (445mm) bike slow... so that's something to consider. As for how long is too long, at 5'-10" I settled on 445mm with a 35mm stem; I started with 50mm on that frame, but found that manualing was significantly easier with the shorter stem. On my next bike I'll probably dial it back a little, maybe around 435.
2
Varaxis
Posts
71
Joined
10/7/2010
Location
Lake Elsinore, CA US
11/19/2017 3:45pm
If you push the front too far forward, then the bike becomes more rearward biased. As a result, the rider feels like they need to be more forward to feel centered. The STA compensates for this while seated, and the standing position is moved forward.

I prefer to be relaxed, in that centered position. If I'm behind the saddle, "taking cover" behind my handlebars, I'm spending energy to maintain an unnatural position.

That steep STA can make a bike feel like a SUV, with how tall it places the rider. It can affect the saddle to bar height ratio too, which can determine whether you fatigue your hands/wrists/arms or your ass on long rides.

30mm is like upsizing. I've ridden 3 sizes of the same bike and sometimes I've preferred the smallest. I can't conclude anything from this sort of test other than my senses and gut instinct are not to be trusted over real research based on the scientific method.

There's a balance to everything. The more variables that the designers sweat, the more refined the ride. I'm not arrogant enough to speak of reach, as if more/less is better or if +30mm reach is better, ignoring other factors. That all said, it's refreshing to see a new approach, especially considering everything else out there only has very minor details that leave things up to pure preference and personal circumstances to edge out other options.
1
crisotop
Posts
5
Joined
11/4/2016
Location
AT
11/20/2017 8:00am
I'm about to decide the frame size for my next bike and found some interesting points in that discussion. I'm 175cm (5'9) tall with a 82cm (32') inseam and 184cm (6'05) wingspan, which means I've got fairly long arms & legs for my height.

My current trailbike has a 432mm reach paired with a 50mm stem and feels smallish for me and my regular riding terrain. The downhill bike feels spot on with 445mm and a 45mm stem, although it's hard to compare because of the different front- and rear-centre measurement. A significantly slacker head angle and/or longer chainstays will change the ride characteristics even if the riders "space" between the bb and handlebars stays roughly the same.

I've ridden a slightly larger bike (460+40) for a couple of weeks and was struggling in corners to keep the front weighted and ride a smooth arc (no matter if it was a berm, or open corner).

Anybody else in the same height department with monkey arms and a clear preference for longer bikes? Do I just have to re-learn cornering and adapt my riding style to a longer frame?
1
Verbl Kint
Posts
564
Joined
9/13/2013
Location
Quezon City PH
11/20/2017 10:39am
jasbushey wrote:
I like this thread, and actually reinforces a bit of my thinking. I want a playful bike and not as concerned about straight line speed if...
I like this thread, and actually reinforces a bit of my thinking. I want a playful bike and not as concerned about straight line speed if a bike is agile. I’m 5’7” on a good day with “t-Rex” arms. I’m currently on a medium gen 1 Bronson with around 400mm reach, and have settled on a ibis hd4 as the next bike. But their size chart had me questioning reach measurements saying I should be a medium which is a 35mm jump in reach. I concluded that the wheelbase is way too long for what I want at 1192 (I think), and have decided on a small w 50mm stem because I like the shorter wheelbase at 1162 for the switchbacks and in town mellower riding we have. I’m still growing about 15mm in reach and 20ish mm in wheelbase from the bronson, but first and foremost it felt right to me when I rode it, still real playful but massively capable. I was questioning based on ibis chart but whatever, it’s what I want.
I am in the same boat (the sweet spot between small and medium sizes aka SMedium) as I am 5'7" as well.

When I was shopping for a new bike a couple of years ago, I had thought that with the Sanction (412mm reach on size small), I had to size down since it had a more "modern" geo (at the time). I also followed their recommendation as well of getting a stem with a 35mm length. Fast forward a year later, I sold my old stem and got a 50mm one instead. I felt that with the shorter stem, my center of gravity didn't seem centered in the bike, and it was difficult finding balance on fast and steep tracks.

I am actually quite happy with my set up now. I just hope I figure out the math right (412mm reach plus 50mm stem with the Sanction's 74.5 deg seat tube angle) when I buy a new rig in the future.
jcook
Posts
14
Joined
4/28/2017
Location
Everett, WA US
11/20/2017 6:24pm Edited Date/Time 11/20/2017 6:51pm
I'm 6'2 and am riding an 2017 XL Banshee Rune (480mm reach), and I'd never go back to anything shorter. I did hop on a 2016 or 2017 Kona Process with a 515mm reach, and I'll admit that felt a bit too big for anything but a straight line

It's interesting to see very little discussion about the ratio of stack to reach, i.e. the hypotenuse of those two / distance from bb to steerer. Along those same lines, I recall a Pinkbike bike comparison between two WC or EWS riders where the writer (Porter?) said the only measurement that actually matters is from the bb to the end of the handlebar, which is essentially a 3-dimensional version of the reach/stack ratio.

Edit: Maybe that measurement has remained similar over the past 5-10 years, however we've moved away from higher rise handlebars and towards longer reach bikes, rotating that contact point further forward and lower?
taldfind
Posts
141
Joined
8/6/2012
Location
Blackfoot, ID US
11/20/2017 7:16pm Edited Date/Time 11/20/2017 7:16pm
jcook wrote:
I'm 6'2 and am riding an 2017 XL Banshee Rune (480mm reach), and I'd never go back to anything shorter. I did hop on a 2016...
I'm 6'2 and am riding an 2017 XL Banshee Rune (480mm reach), and I'd never go back to anything shorter. I did hop on a 2016 or 2017 Kona Process with a 515mm reach, and I'll admit that felt a bit too big for anything but a straight line

It's interesting to see very little discussion about the ratio of stack to reach, i.e. the hypotenuse of those two / distance from bb to steerer. Along those same lines, I recall a Pinkbike bike comparison between two WC or EWS riders where the writer (Porter?) said the only measurement that actually matters is from the bb to the end of the handlebar, which is essentially a 3-dimensional version of the reach/stack ratio.

Edit: Maybe that measurement has remained similar over the past 5-10 years, however we've moved away from higher rise handlebars and towards longer reach bikes, rotating that contact point further forward and lower?
I don't think there is such a thing as an "only measurement that actually matters" in bike geometry. As for the BB to Steer length, it also can't give you the Reach/Stack ratio. Lets say you have a 440mm reach with a 610mm stack, the BB-Steer would be 752.13mm, and the ratio would be 1:0.72. Now switch the stack and the reach numbers with each other to get a 610mm reach and a 440mm stack, you will still have the same 752.13mm BB-Steer length but the ratio has changed to 1:1.39. These two hypothetical bikes will also have very different fit and ride characteristics from each other.
11/21/2017 12:32am
jcook wrote:
I'm 6'2 and am riding an 2017 XL Banshee Rune (480mm reach), and I'd never go back to anything shorter. I did hop on a 2016...
I'm 6'2 and am riding an 2017 XL Banshee Rune (480mm reach), and I'd never go back to anything shorter. I did hop on a 2016 or 2017 Kona Process with a 515mm reach, and I'll admit that felt a bit too big for anything but a straight line

It's interesting to see very little discussion about the ratio of stack to reach, i.e. the hypotenuse of those two / distance from bb to steerer. Along those same lines, I recall a Pinkbike bike comparison between two WC or EWS riders where the writer (Porter?) said the only measurement that actually matters is from the bb to the end of the handlebar, which is essentially a 3-dimensional version of the reach/stack ratio.

Edit: Maybe that measurement has remained similar over the past 5-10 years, however we've moved away from higher rise handlebars and towards longer reach bikes, rotating that contact point further forward and lower?
taldfind wrote:
I don't think there is such a thing as an "only measurement that actually matters" in bike geometry. As for the BB to Steer length, it...
I don't think there is such a thing as an "only measurement that actually matters" in bike geometry. As for the BB to Steer length, it also can't give you the Reach/Stack ratio. Lets say you have a 440mm reach with a 610mm stack, the BB-Steer would be 752.13mm, and the ratio would be 1:0.72. Now switch the stack and the reach numbers with each other to get a 610mm reach and a 440mm stack, you will still have the same 752.13mm BB-Steer length but the ratio has changed to 1:1.39. These two hypothetical bikes will also have very different fit and ride characteristics from each other.
I agree, for me all the measurements are as important as one another as they all affect one another. If you’re accustomed to looking at geo charts you’ll already be calculating the down tube measurement, perhaps without even realising it. CP just likes to tell everyone they’re doing it wrong. I’m glad people like him are trying stuff but sometimes it’s ok to say “you know what, I tried it another way and tbh we already found the best way”. Perhaps there are reasons we have settled on certain things.
Back to my main point - I prefer to look at the frame geometry, static and stock before any components are fitted because I know how I can affect change by use of a different stem or stem height, bar height/ width, tyres, angle set, even alter the B.B. height and what that will do to the rest of the geo. There was a short lived push for ‘sagged geo’ but it makes no sense. What use is sagged geo for anyone not using exactly the same sag as in the lab. Too many variables, k.i.s.s
Same for the downtube or BB to bar tip - by all means include it but those measurements are a combination of several other measurements and factors and to disregard the rest could result in two similar numbers being completely different bikes. On their own they are quite useless.

We tend to think of reach as one of the primary and most important measurements because it helps denote ‘fit’ but along with the head angle it is one of the main contributors to the front-center measurement which is relative to the rear-center. Do we prioritise fit OR ride characteristic? Or are they one and the same? In my mind the really talented riders tend toward how the bike handles rather than how it ‘fits’. Personally I think we could all benefit from thinking more along those lines. It used to be the same in snowboarding and everyone rode their floor to nose height (as if that magically gave you the right size like some sort of prophecy) then some riders in California started riding whatever they liked and everyone realised that the way the things ride is all that matters.
vweb
Posts
180
Joined
4/14/2011
Location
Lyon FR
11/21/2017 2:39am
With my 6"2', was on large Commençal Meta SL, then large Kona Entourage (465mm reach) and large Giant Reign '16 (458mm reach, but less stack). Now I ride a Ragley Mmmbop (hardtail, so it needs to be shorter and taller in static than duallies) and a Aidrop Edit (453mm reach), both in medium, and I'm pretty happy with them !

So, from my point of view it's not the longer the better at all.
jasbushey
Posts
51
Joined
10/6/2015
Location
Durango, CO US
11/21/2017 9:30am
So I just geeked out pretty heavily using this site. http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm Basically determining the hypotenuse and angle for bikes using stack and reach. To me, this is a good way to determine feel between sizes of a bike. STA also affects, so this doesn't take this into account. One major thing to take into account is the handlebar rise and stem you will use on the bike. I rode a small HD4 with 50mm stem and 20mm rise, and felt pretty similar to my Bronson today (comfortable). I also jumped on a medium with a 30mm stem and seated position felt about the same, still good, but it was super long wheelbase.

When looking at the Ibis Mojo HD4, between small and medium. Here's geometry. (Reach, Stack, Wheelbase)
Sm = 415, 570, 1162
Med = 435, 590, 1192

On major difference is stack height difference rising 20mm. It is one of the smallest stacks at that reach of comparable bikes (for example, Pivot Mach 5.5 sm is 410 reach and 596 stack).

Using a small with a 50mm stem and 30mm rise bar (compensate for low stack), gives you a true reach of 465 and true stack of 604. A medium with a 30mm stem and 20mm rise gives a 465 true reach and 610 true stack. This gives the SM a hypotenuse of 762mm at 52.4 angle, and a MD a 767 at 52.7 angle. So basically I see this as they would ride the same seated. Since I have a lot of trails that are pretty tight and twisty around here and don't value straight line speed as much, the smaller WB of the small is more suited for my riding. Also I feel 30mm stems are a bit too twitchy for me and a 50mm stem on a medium would be too long for me, which also creates lower back pain (I used to get on my older Yeti, but not on the Bronson).

Reach is just 1 number. The HTA, STA, and wheelbase I use quite a bit as well in determining what bike I'd want.
Varaxis
Posts
71
Joined
10/7/2010
Location
Lake Elsinore, CA US
11/21/2017 3:16pm
Wheelbase is the primary # I use for determining what kind of ride experience I want in my quiver, for separation purposes. I do pay attention regarding how they come to such a number though: chainstay length, reach, HTA and length, headset stack, fork length, wheel and tire size...

I trust the mfgs to tune things correctly according to their sizing scheme, med 17" for someone 172cm (5' 7"). I go by brand and chassis rating to determine the right amount of chassis stiffness for someone of my stature (61kg 135lbs) and terrain "hardness".

It's a risk to go against the mfg recommendations, upsizing or downsizing, and trying to adjust using stems and handlebar geo, seatpost offsets, saddle rail position, crank length, etc. I don't know that much. If they want to sell to me, they're best off targeting me specifically by finding areas they think their bike will excel in and getting demos around me, else I tend to get what others around me are happy riding on (Yeti, Trek, Santa Cruz, Ibis, etc).

I personally am thinking about getting my RM Thunderbolt fixed up again to serve as my agile short wheelbase bike, sharing a quiver with a stable higher speed bike with longer wheelbase bigger wheeled bike.
11/22/2017 7:20am Edited Date/Time 11/22/2017 7:23am
There seem to be 3 ways of determining how a bike rides and how good it is.
1. Look at the geometry chart and suspension design on paper and decide from there.
2. The ABC method: I tried bike A, then I tried bike B that had a bigger X tube/angle and it rode better, so bike C having even bigger X tube/angle will therefore ride even better.
3. Actually riding the thing and seeing if it works and accept that taking single geo/suspension numbers in iscolation really won't tell you what you might expect.

I think we're all discovering that only method 3 actually works and was very well demonstrated by Vital's recent 10 Enduro bike grouptest.

Comments like "long bikes don't turn well" were proven to be complete nonsense
1
Varaxis
Posts
71
Joined
10/7/2010
Location
Lake Elsinore, CA US
11/22/2017 3:36pm Edited Date/Time 11/22/2017 4:06pm
I wouldn't dismiss such comments as complete nonsense. I'd just question how they came to such a conclusion. It may be a long bike, and it may not turn in a manner that they like, but the reason(s) could be something else.

I'd immediately question if they changed any parts from stock, to ensure that their experience can be perhaps applied to others on the same bike, and see if those others feel the same way. It's sad that some stop right here and insult the rider, saying it's not an "apples to apples" comparison, and that the issue is linked to his judgement. I want to go further and think about the impact of their setup and changes. Does running 25% sag up front and 30% in the back, swapping in a 30-40mm length stem and 750-800mm bar, and running like 17-22 psi front and 25-32 psi rear play a role in all this, vs running stock and starting with recommended sag as a mere starting point? Did they see what changes happened due to each change by itself? Did the changes alleviate the issue, rather than make it more pronounced? What about their trails and technique? It's shocking to hear people just do big changes right from the start, without doing comparison, and not really swapping in any new parts afterwards, not interested in taking time to discover incremental improvement. I find people are extremely reluctant to share much in-depth info, which is a shame since they're closing people off from potentially getting a better understanding. I suppose that they don't want to have people finding good reason to say their conclusion is off. They tend to point to others doing the same, such as the media, to shift attention elsewhere and use the "fact" that "everyone can't be wrong" as a shield/wall. Considering that the media tries to get 2nd opinions on bikes, getting only 1 size of it, and having riders of different size/shape ride it with fit modifications, also falls to this problem.

I believe that I try to take things "with a grain of salt", but what I really like to do is to just separate fact from fiction. Fiction is the entertainment side around things, spinning a story in out of someone's impressions, perception, or even their imagination; this is what people usually call an opinion. Weights and measurements, are facts. Statements that put things into context, like comparisons, are golden facts. Subject A is stiffer than subject B, is one such golden fact. An example of fiction is, Subject A is stiffer, so it feels racier and more confidence inspiring, offering more traction, control, and precision, making you go faster. Fiction can contradicts another, such as "wheel A" is less stiff therefore gets faster times and has more traction. Shouldn't outright dismiss such things, as they can still be useful. You just have to somehow fit it into a big picture that has no contradictions. Might have to modify such bits, like saying that the stiffer part has a deceptively fast *feeling*, but may not be faster when timed. It's one of many cases where human senses and biases can be fooled. In fact, every time something is unexpected, you know some part of your judgement is wrong and should reflect, trying to fix it. It might be some elementary misunderstanding, and ignoring/keeping it only discredits you. Fact remains that one guy was unsatisfied by the turning ability of a specific "long bike" (setup unknown)--that fact has some value, though such value tends to be measured by the related context, so not much value compared to other well-supported facts.

In the end, it's all about context. The more context you know, the better your understanding/answer is likely to be.

Anyways, this question is one that should best left to the designers. The guys at Mondraker, Unno, Whyte, Transition, Nicolai, Pole, and even Vital have the resources and/or connections to better figure this out, compared to internet laymen. I feel that, when a media outlet brings up the question, it only serves to subconsciously drive the urge to try/buy new stuff, and create a cycle that drives the industry forward. The money from people replacing bikes that already do the job, used to "solve the problem" of mitigating some existing compromise/weakness marginally and appeasing one's envious, jealous, greedy, prideful, lustful, etc. nature funds the research. It's like deciding which "bike research firm" gets your money (or in this case, your attention), based on whether or not you like their ideas. Amusing how an innocent question like, "how much reach is too much reach?" can get me to see how "ugly" we are by simply opening up and reflecting on all the related knowledge...






Fred_Pop
Posts
117
Joined
11/26/2017
Location
FR
11/26/2017 11:00am
There seem to be 3 ways of determining how a bike rides and how good it is. 1. Look at the geometry chart and suspension design...
There seem to be 3 ways of determining how a bike rides and how good it is.
1. Look at the geometry chart and suspension design on paper and decide from there.
2. The ABC method: I tried bike A, then I tried bike B that had a bigger X tube/angle and it rode better, so bike C having even bigger X tube/angle will therefore ride even better.
3. Actually riding the thing and seeing if it works and accept that taking single geo/suspension numbers in iscolation really won't tell you what you might expect.

I think we're all discovering that only method 3 actually works and was very well demonstrated by Vital's recent 10 Enduro bike grouptest.

Comments like "long bikes don't turn well" were proven to be complete nonsense
As someone with an actual long bike (Pole EVOLINK 176) with a reach of 520mm, wheelbase of 1340mm, chainstays of 460mm and headangle of 63º I agree with Tristan Mayor when he says only actual riding can tell you whether or not a bike will ride well.

My previous bike was a Specialized Status with a reach of 450mm, wheelbase 1225mm and 425mm chainstays. So 70mm shorter reach, 115mm shorter wheelbase and 35mm shorter chainstays. At the time I thought it rode well though I still felt the toptube to be short.

I got the Pole last year at the beginning of summer and it didn't take long to get used to the longer bike. Yes I had to ride it in a different way. More on the front or middle and not off the back like the Specialized.
The things I noticed straight away was the straight line stability (no brainer), the increase in grip specially in the steep off camber stuff but the biggest surprise was climbing! The steep seat tube angle with the long front end and the long chainstays allowed me to climb ridiculously steep pitches without wheeling or spinning out since I was able to stay seated. And none of that crouching over the front end, sitting on the tip of the saddle stuff was necessary! Now I regularly set myself uphill challenges and am thinking of running a 22/40T as the lowest gear!

After over a year of riding I am way more in tuned with the bike and can ride everything with way more confidence and speed. The long reach provides a longer sweet spot to ride the bike, makes it easier to drift the bike, it just feels way better overall. The only downside is the bike is harder to manual but once you manage it the front end stays up for days!

I live in the French Alps and the bike feels great there. I have also ridden the bike on less demanding terrain and it still felt great though maybe 160mm/176mm of travel might be overkill for certain trails.

I'm 180cm aka 5'11" and I run a 10mm stem and love the 520mm reach. Out of curiosity I would like to try even longer reaches say 535mm (XL size Pole) or 555mm (Nicolai XXL). But I think the longer reach bikes might be less all arounders.

Anyways that is my 2cents.
2
bmxben
Posts
3
Joined
6/5/2017
Location
GB
5/14/2018 1:14am
Has anyone who posted on this thread now moved towards a longer reach as indicated in ongoing trend towards longer bikes?

Also, how much emphasis do you place on the seated Effective Top Tube dimension when considering reach for long hill climbs?
crisotop
Posts
5
Joined
11/4/2016
Location
AT
5/14/2018 4:57am
I'm currently riding a Medium ("longer") Nicolai G16 (R502/S608) at 175cm height, but have a fairly high ape-index (185cm wingspan). Bunny hops and manuals took a couple of tries to get the timing right (felt really impossible on my first ride), but feel pretty normal/natural now.

Seated climbing is definitely an issue as I felt my lower back for the first weeks. Switching from 580ETT with a 50mm stem to 640ETT and 35mm stem felt considerably different (+4,5cm) but not out if this world. As often described the bike climbs incredibly well, due to the centered seating, long stays and front-centre. But on long rides I really felt the more stretched-out position in my back. It's getting a lot more comfortable now, my body/muscles have probably adjusted a bit Wink

My temporary conclusion: If you seek a very stable bike, that excels in extreme riding situations (fast, steep, off-camber, ...) go for it. For a more playful ride, you might want to dial the length back a bit (who would have thought that Smile
bmxben
Posts
3
Joined
6/5/2017
Location
GB
5/14/2018 5:16am
Your comment on timing is really useful. I've found I had to use the dropper post to corner as well on longer bikes.

I'm only a tad taller with a similar wide ape-index. I've found that about a 445mm reach is good for a nimble feeling, yet good climbing all rounder, ride with a 40mm - 50mm stem. The problem I'm finding is that most frames of interest in Medium have really short effective top tubes 595mm or so, with reach figures in the 435mm range. Large sizes tend to get long seat tubes which is real shame (for me).

I kind of feel like i need a long medium, something with a 620-630 ETT, 445-455 Reach and short seat tube. Keen on an Evil following or New Stumpjumper ST, which both have a 435mm Reach that could work with a 50mm stem, yet it's looking like I have to size up on either to get an ETT in right range?
5/14/2018 5:36am
bmxben wrote:
Your comment on timing is really useful. I've found I had to use the dropper post to corner as well on longer bikes. I'm only a...
Your comment on timing is really useful. I've found I had to use the dropper post to corner as well on longer bikes.

I'm only a tad taller with a similar wide ape-index. I've found that about a 445mm reach is good for a nimble feeling, yet good climbing all rounder, ride with a 40mm - 50mm stem. The problem I'm finding is that most frames of interest in Medium have really short effective top tubes 595mm or so, with reach figures in the 435mm range. Large sizes tend to get long seat tubes which is real shame (for me).

I kind of feel like i need a long medium, something with a 620-630 ETT, 445-455 Reach and short seat tube. Keen on an Evil following or New Stumpjumper ST, which both have a 435mm Reach that could work with a 50mm stem, yet it's looking like I have to size up on either to get an ETT in right range?
The problem with what you are looking for is that it creates a very slack seat tube angle (the only way to make room for a longer ETT without stretching the reach is to move the seat back). In my experience, for climbing, I'd rather have a "too short" ETT, than a too slack seat tube angle, as the latter puts your weight too far back and also leaves you feeling like your sat "behind the pedals" which is pretty horrible for climbing.
crisotop
Posts
5
Joined
11/4/2016
Location
AT
5/14/2018 6:03am
I second that, rather a seat angle >75° and a more upright climbing position, that having all the weight over the rear axle when things get steep on the uphill.

Having just spent two days on my DH bike (445 reach / 45mm stem), which felt weird on the first morning, I quickly realised it was just a much more fun ride to throw around in the park.
hide5
Posts
3
Joined
11/19/2017
Location
Edmond, OK US
5/14/2018 9:45am
I didnt change bike, but I try put saddle forward, and change stem from 40mm to 60mm, also use less sag on my fork, it actually turns out great, the only problem is you need to remember to lean back more when you in the air.
LLLLL
Posts
283
Joined
8/30/2015
Location
IE
2/13/2019 7:59am
Yes but the distance between the centre of the set post to the steerer is the exact same to the mm. Med warden to S2 stumpy evo.
Craw
Posts
16
Joined
10/16/2013
Location
CA
2/13/2019 8:16am
I'm 6'6" and my XL G16 is the first bike I've ever had that fit right. I've had around 28 high end bikes in my life and this is a first. But it's not just reach. It's stack and rear center length paired with STA. Look at a brand that doesn't vary chainstay length and seat tube angle by size and I'll show you a bike that sucks in XS or XL.
1
LLLLL
Posts
283
Joined
8/30/2015
Location
IE
2/13/2019 8:28am
luisgutrod wrote:
until you start to hate your new CG, you realize you cannot do mini-manuals on blind trails where you cannot prepare your body position that fast...
until you start to hate your new CG, you realize you cannot do mini-manuals on blind trails where you cannot prepare your body position that fast... I guess that on a bike that you can pedal, reach is limited by the STA... there has to be a limit there 74-77 may be ? That Pole bike starts to look weird to ride...
I could run 78 very happily. my saddle is slated forward.
Roots_rider
Posts
76
Joined
5/8/2010
Location
Jackson, WY US
2/13/2019 9:14am
When I first really started to understand what I was doing on a bike, 8-9 years ago. Everything I rode was sub 400 maybe a touch over. Next two bikes were 430-435. Now 453 and 470. I find a stem and reach combined around 500-510, currently feels like the money spot to me. I’m a touch over 5’9”. Personally I have only felt like I can corner harder now, due to being able to freely move around “in” the bike and find proper balance points for given situations instead of being forced into one position, trying to balance the bike. Not sure for my style I’d go much bigger, maybe if I was racing, but only for raceday situations where max speed and stability is necessary.
2/13/2019 10:12am
I love the angles on my 650b orbea rallon in large, at just over six feet tall it made sense. I came off a yeti asr 5 which was long at the time of release but dwarfed by the orbea. I've been able to fit a longer fork and still have plenty of room with a slightly longer stem. I find myself wondering if this is the goldilocks bike for me but am intrigued to try a new 29er cotic rocketmax which looks as long as a farmers gate and see if the stability robs any fun
2/13/2019 11:40am Edited Date/Time 2/13/2019 11:41am
Funny story regarding Greg Minnaar and frame reach. My first time working with Greg as my guest coach in a downhill camp he was still on Honda. The next year he was on Santa Cruz and riding a large V-10 (which had the reach measurement of most manufacturers medium downhill frames). Greg and I are both 6'3" and I was riding an XL Canfield Jedi at the time. I told Greg that his frame was too short for him. He laughed and said, who's the World Champion here. Smile

I explained that the sweet spot (where all your weight is on the pedals) was too short for him and the short frame made him ride too upright. Upright riding position made him tippy and didn't allow enough sag in his arms (which causes the rider to get yanked down small ledges or as Brandon said, seesaw).

He eventually moved up to an XXL with a 10mm internal headset reach extender. He also lengthened the chainstay on that bike to stay more centered.

He seems to corner and manual quite well on that double XL!

I really don't think lengthening a bike by 20mm-30mm suddenly makes it hard to corner or manual. That's only 1.5 to 3% increase in length assuming the frame has a wheelbase between 1000mm and 1300mm wheelbase.

Personally I feel staying centered, low and balanced is easier on a long frame. When you are centered, low and balanced you corner at you best and can smooth out the rough sections (due to the sag created by your bent arms).

When the Canfield Brothers made their 27.5 wheeled Jedi they lengthened the chainstays, increased the reach by 10mm and slackened the head angle a degree. I thought, sweet it will be even faster in a straight line but corner a little worse. I was right about the straight line speed but wrong about the cornering! I called Chris and Lance after my first day on that bike and told them they knocked it out of the park! It was the best cornering bike I had ever ridden (and the longest bike I had ever ridden).

In short, ever since My Yeti Lawill DH8 (look how long and slack that bike is, one of my competitors called it the Aircraft Carrier) I have loved long and slack bikes. Man, that bike was so ahead of it's time!


1
2/13/2019 12:41pm
I'm 6'4". I got a Bird Aeris two years ago. 528 mm reach, short stack at 608 mm. 64 HA.

I learned two things:
-stack is important, like many other tall riders, I like my handlebars up high. I'm running about 60 mm of spacers under my stem, so I'm effectively riding a bike with a 668 mm stack, and reach of 504 mm.

-I'm never going back to the shorter geometry. The wheelbase is ~ 1290 mm. Manualing is tricky. Otherwise the bike kicks ass. I find the bike is just fine through very tight sections of trail. It climbs much better, I can actually climb up steeper trail than I can on an xc race bike. Handles steep descents much better. With the longer wheelbase I find it handles corners very well. I don't find issues with tight corners.

-Other thing that I've found, is that I can't go over the bars with the longer geometry ... and I've tried, repeatedly. I also used to get lower back pain from riding, I've found that I can stretch out now, and this has gone away.
1
GetSoMesy
Posts
8
Joined
2/7/2010
Location
Santa Barbara, CA US
2/13/2019 12:53pm Edited Date/Time 2/14/2019 12:03am
FRONT CENTER LENGTH SHOULD HAVE A REAR CENTER LENGTH THAT COMPLIMENTS IT. BAR WIDTH, REACH, HEAD ANGLE,STEM LENGTH, FORK LENGTH & OFFSET ADD UP TO FRONT CENTER. CHAINSTAY SHOULD BE PROPORTIONATELY EQUIVALENT IN ANY CASE. SLIGHT VARIATION FOR RIDER DIMENTIONS.

TALL PEOPLE ARE GENERALLY FORCED TO DIFFERENT POSTURE THAN IDEAL CAUSE BIKES ARENT SIZED PROPORTIONATELY, MUST ADOPT POOR APROACH OF WIGHTING HANDLEBARS EXESIVELY CAUSE NO OTHER OPTION PROVIDED. ALMOST ALL MODERN BIKES ARE TOO SHORT REAR CENTER TO HAVE GOOD WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION. SHORT CHAINSTAYS ARE MALIGNINENT BANDAID FOR UNDEVELOPED TECHNIQUE, CONFIDENCE INSPIRING TO SQUIDS BUT NOT ACTUALLY PRODUCTIVE OF TRACTION OR SPEED.

THEY HAVE INCREASED FRONT CENTER LENGTH ENDLESSLY, MORE REACH, MORE RAKE, MORE OFFSET, MORE FORK LENGTH. THE ONLY THING BRINGING COG TOWARDS FRONT IS WIDE BARS. ALL WHILE DECREASING REAR CENTER (CHAINSTAY)... THIS CREATES UNBALANCED WHEEL WEIGHTING AND POOR TRACTION REQUIRING STUPID FLOW TRAIL BERMS TO TURN.

id say 440 m chainstays might work well on a M bike with a 67ha, 428mm reach, 37mm offset 420mm seattube 140mm travel.. probably be a nice balanced tight handling all mountain bike, capable of some speed.

do you want a 160-180mm high speed rough riding, off camber rooty rocky clamering , loam sufing, gnar blaster?
well if your gonna have a roomy cockpit with good arm bracing angle, say 435mm reach for my average 5'10" frame,... calm steering 64deg, and 170mm travel 560A-C fork. 50mm 790mm bar stem for smooth powerful steering and front wheel weighting. well in this case your FC is gonna be much longer than the forementioned trail/ am bike, and unless you like your front wheel sliding out you should probably have a long rear center to match it to create fairly equal weight distribution. i would say like 465mm chainstay!

its not an issue of reach getting to long. big person, big reach but also they should have big chainstays. i imagine someone 6'5 would want like a 510mm reach, maybe a lil steeper head angle to keep the front wheel close enough, reduced offset to get stable comprable fork trail. but like 490 chainstays to go with it, oh and heavier tubes, and clear those low hanging branches. if your big, your gonna be stuck being big, sorry. your choice if you tryn wear lil shoes (chainstays) probably will be hard to balance though.

a 5' 2" woman's bike with 405 reach, groms, or trick bike is the only place we should be seeing 420mm chainstays!

also effective seat angle makes me wanna puke. if its not measured at the assumed bb to groin stack height (which is above headtube) then your not getting a real number. like lets assume inseam for each size and measure the seat there.
seat needs to clear tire when slammed and be 73ish degrees seat angle when CLIMBING, like every winning road bike, cause pedaling leg geo is not up for argument. we climb seated and sometimes standing but seat angle is exclusive of standing and downhill handling. seat angle and related should be purely a matter of 1. correct seat position for climbing 2 .seat out of way of rear wheel 3. seat goes low enough to not hamper dh handling and high enough for efficiency. MOST MANUFACTURES ARE FAILING TO MEET THESE GOALS.


5'10" very expert dh freeride all mountain big hitter gnar backwoods dirtbag enjoy tech climbs too now 28yo 33" inseam 6' wingspan prefer running 50mm stem and 800+bars.

-2004- 2007 used to ride dj bikes doing everything. short everything, very maneuverable. big bunnyhops LOW SEAT,
-2007 built a medium 2005 stinky deluxe 17.9" chainstays, an italian 888 64ish head angle. rode it gnarly, freeride and dh and pedaled it 18yo expert. it handled steered great. pedal bob and brake stiffening were its major faults.
-2009 swapped to a Medium demo 9 frame. squished from pedaling less, better braking performance. had custom valved suspension and lots of tuning, but the short chainstays 16.5ish combined with pleasant reach frequently pushed understeered front end.
-2011 went to a M session 88 frame. 17.5 chainstay, lil bit shorter reach like 405ish. much more agressive steering pumping bike, like your really in the front seat compared to the short chainstay with kinda long front center of the demo.
rode more BIG hits and STEEP stuff, never had a problem going over the front or stability, anywhere. a bit high strung but nice nutural handling standing in the middle of the bike. knees were close to bars had to spread knees w pads around dual crown sprinting flat and uphill, which i think is a major fit constraint depending on reach and single or dual crown fork.

EVEN THOUGH REACH WAS SHORT JUST KEEP SEAT LOW AND CROUCH LOW FOR STABILITY AERODYNAMICS &CORNERING COG. BETTER TO LOWER COG THEN PUT FRONT WHEEL WAY FORWARD.

-Rode a M 2011 enduro a year, stupid shitty quality bike nice front center geometry though, chainstays too short poor tech climber cornering.
-2012 got a medium v1 nomad next 17.5 chainstays 17" seattube kinda tall shortish reach like 405. 36 talas, vpp snappy pedaling 1x10drive good climber hit everything no problem blackrock oregon santa barbara whatever no problems. plenty stable. knees just clear bars with single crown but a lil tight on reach.
-2014 medium banshee darkside 415mm reach, still a lil short for knees but ok. then a rune 420mm reach clears bars with knees talas 180 fork. good bike but 16.5 chainstays suck. squirlly & poor cornering 26" wheels but got 17.1"chainstay dropouts before 27.5 wheels, better but could be better. made 17.9" 460mm chainstay dropouts on cnc with a buddy, dropped 30 seconds consistent on 10 minute trail easily. way better!! if you know how to wheelie manual hop pump well its still no problem with 17.9 chainstays, actually easier cause you can yank to get higher without flipping back. position of standing in the middle of the bike much easier to absorb big impacts. like the difference from a yamaha Sad vs a honda 4stroke mx bike Smile
2017 got a orange 324 17.5 chainstays 424 reach after clapping out the rune. cockpit tight with dual crown but fine with single crown. going from 17.9 chainstays to 17.5 was sad though and i never really loved it. doesnt corner as well, less centered easy body position.

gotta get another bike with long stays, working on it now khs 6600+ 459mm cs. also oranges new 327 medium 424 reach 455 chainstays is the right direction. their 329 29er dhbike has 440ish reach and 469mm chainstays yum yum.




2
831MHolly
Posts
3
Joined
2/9/2018
Location
Hollister, CA US
2/13/2019 12:55pm
510mm reach w/ a 40mm stem paired with 825mm bars on my XL Process 153. Came off of an XL 1st Gen Ibis Mojo HD w/ 50mm stem and 800mm bars. Not sure of the exact reach number on the HD, however I can say that the difference is night and day. I'm 6'4" with really long arms. Always felt like I was getting pitched over the front wheel on the Mojo HD. The Process has me right in my happy place. It's really a subjective argument in my mind. Some will prefer a longer reach than others or vice versa.
LLLLL
Posts
283
Joined
8/30/2015
Location
IE
2/13/2019 12:57pm
LLLLL wrote:
Yes but the distance between the centre of the set post to the steerer is the exact same to the mm. Med warden to S2 stumpy...
Yes but the distance between the centre of the set post to the steerer is the exact same to the mm. Med warden to S2 stumpy evo.
im 170cm. im surprised so many of you guys are riding smaller wheel bases.

Post a reply to: How Much Reach is Too Much Reach?

The Latest