yep without a doubt. The current bike is too small for me. I've ridden ~500mm reach bikes before and took to it like a duck to...
yep without a doubt. The current bike is too small for me. I've ridden ~500mm reach bikes before and took to it like a duck to water. The wheelbase and chainstay are the wildcards for me.
This could be the best, or worst decision I've made.... and I'm married lol!
You'll get used to the extra length soon enough and then forget about it.
I have, this bike rips and makes me so much more confident in the steeps and carves a corner like nothing else. I took a bit of a gamble and it payed off massively. 10/10 for me.
Long reach and wheelbase, making shit riders less shit
I have, this bike rips and makes me so much more confident in the steeps and carves a corner like nothing else. I took a bit...
I have, this bike rips and makes me so much more confident in the steeps and carves a corner like nothing else. I took a bit of a gamble and it payed off massively. 10/10 for me.
Long reach and wheelbase, making shit riders less shit
I (187 cm) upgraded from 470 mm reach to 500 mm and it was the best thing I think I could have done. I even thought an XL Norco Sight (515 mm reach) felt great.
One problem I've noticed (190 cm, 525 mm reach, 680 mm top tube, 1292 mm wheelbase) is that a longer bike wants to go fast. There might be some sense in going shorter as it will maybe keep the speeds in check a bit more - crashing should be safer?
One problem I've noticed (190 cm, 525 mm reach, 680 mm top tube, 1292 mm wheelbase) is that a longer bike wants to go fast. There...
One problem I've noticed (190 cm, 525 mm reach, 680 mm top tube, 1292 mm wheelbase) is that a longer bike wants to go fast. There might be some sense in going shorter as it will maybe keep the speeds in check a bit more - crashing should be safer?
maybe, but I don't get bucked off line nearly as much anymore and any rough sections it just plows through, arguably it's safer. I honestly don't know how you could go over the bars with 63 degree head angle unless you were doing something really stupid. No doubt I'll do it next ride out
Personally I do not jive with very long reach. However I am a big fan of lengthening the wheelbase with long chainstays and a 62.5 degree head tube angle. I can comfortably run a much higher stack height and a shorter stem and still have plenty of front wheel grip. This has led to a massive improvement in handling at high speeds, my legs a stronger position to absorb hits, and a far more neutral riding position where I do not need to adjust my riding position nearly as much for different gradients. The reasonable reach and high stack height make getting over the 29 rear wheel in steeps far easier. I still may ultimately convert my spire to a mullet, but I’m very happy I went with it over a patrol for my riding style. I think a patrol would be a smash for someone with a little more skill and a little less rodeo cowboy than myself.
Its interesting reading through my previous comments on reach and how much we haven't talked about how stack plays into this. Over the past few years at 5’7” (with a -2” negative ape index) I’ve gone from a (reach/stack) 404/594 to 415/570 to 435/590 to 430/614 on a small Pivot Switchblade. I feel the most recent bike fits me really well and back to back parking lot testing against the medium (455/625) I found the medium was too long for me to get the front wheel up and maneuver the bike in slow speed situations as I would like. It felt too high and too long. I ride more slow speed tech than high speed chunder.
All this has me confused about is how stack affects a bikes performance in combination with reach. Comparing the 430/614 and the 435/590 the 590 stack I struggled to get the front wheel up as well as I can with the 614. It’s hard to say what wins on cornering, but I think overall the 614 has been a better fit for moving the bike around. I would think there is a stack height that it is too much stack, but clearly I don’t know. I also rode the Stumpy S3 (448/626) and I did start to get used to it, but I think I still preferred the maneuverability of my Switchblade in tights and where picking the front end up was more necessary.
A couple bikes I’m considering are 427/625 and 450/616. Since one is shorter and higher will the two feel similar? How does the stack play into it?
One problem I've noticed (190 cm, 525 mm reach, 680 mm top tube, 1292 mm wheelbase) is that a longer bike wants to go fast. There...
One problem I've noticed (190 cm, 525 mm reach, 680 mm top tube, 1292 mm wheelbase) is that a longer bike wants to go fast. There might be some sense in going shorter as it will maybe keep the speeds in check a bit more - crashing should be safer?
maybe, but I don't get bucked off line nearly as much anymore and any rough sections it just plows through, arguably it's safer. I honestly don't...
maybe, but I don't get bucked off line nearly as much anymore and any rough sections it just plows through, arguably it's safer. I honestly don't know how you could go over the bars with 63 degree head angle unless you were doing something really stupid. No doubt I'll do it next ride out
It can still fold under you when leaned into a turn. Speaking from experience.
Yeah, it's safer because it's more stable and everything, at the same speed! But are you going at the same speed? Or are you doing mach chicken because the bike is much faster now? I know it's the latter for me since I've gone for a long 29er. That's the issue I have. It's safer in general, but when you inevitably fudge it up, the consequences are much higher.
Also, long reach and tiredness, there are often comments that long bikes require riding over the front a lot. Does anyone else also have problems with the legs giving up? I've mentioned I'm on 525 mm of reach at 190 cm. I have noodles for arms and somewhat strong legs for my physique (still not strong though). Invariably it's the legs that give up for me, I often need to stretch them if the descents are a bit longer. Arms are never a problem for me, not even arm pump from the brakes for example. Not even after 10, 15 minutes or half an hour of straight descending. It's possible (likely) I'm doing something wrong, but yeah...
It's usually lower back that lights up first for me, likely because I sit at a desk for work and since the pandemic have done almost zero strength training/mobility work... I am coasting on credit earned in the gym the decade prior but at age 41 that is going to expire soon. Riding a bigger bike actively feels like it takes more energy from me. Sure you can just stand there and go along for the ride but that doesn't usually go very well especially in corners.
Wouldn't it make sense to have the +- values relative, not absolute? +20 mm of reach is a bit more when you're starting off 400 than it is at 500 (okay, +5 vs. +4 %, still).
Come to think of it, technically better, practically a lot more cumbersome. Carry on.
Isn't the rider level thing upside down? I mean, pros ride shorter bikes, beginners tend to like the safety a long bike brings them and they are not too fussed about corners (or anything benefiting of an agile bike like jumps) because they can't ride them anyways lol
That's not far of my likings. But I don't think differenciating the reach between enduro and DH makes sense.
I don't know why DH reaches are that much shorter (maybe they just work and the other option is the 'too long one'?), but Enduro/AM/trail/etc. reaches are much more defined by the top tube length and seat tube angle. With the proliferation of steep seat tube angles, unless you went for a REALLY short cockpit (Privateer, looking at you), you end up with a long reach value. It's a purely consequential thing...
Listened to the TEAMROBOT podcast today (yeah, backlog...) and hearing the panic braking approach to weighing the front end on a long reach, short rear end bike I immediately thought 'Porsche 911' - you have to turn them in on the brakes too due to the weight being over the rear.
Are long front, short rear bikes the 911s of MTB then?
Given that my Birb (sic) is 507 reach /430 cs I feel qualified to say it's more Beetle than 911, though I suspect it's more me than the bike at this point.
It's been a bumpy transition, as my previous bike was 77mm shorter reach and 6 degree's steeper Ha!!!
i think we just found the solution to all our reach disagreements, but as a result, the forums may go quiet until the next wheel size or bb shell standard is released (2nd bike in video...the first bike is actually kinda rad)
With my recent bikes I've gradually gone up from 470mm and I'm currently at 510mm (Norco Optic, XL). I'm 6'2" and have pretty regular proportions. So far I haven't actually found any drawbacks to riding a longer bike. I wouldn't want to miss out on the added high-speed stability.
I'm willing to try 520-530mm Reach for my next bike. I'll keep going up until I find the point of diminishing returns or a straight up disadvantage.
Being 6ft 6, I've found the reach of the Stumpy Evo S6 to fit great (and assuming other bikes with 530 or so reaches would be a great fit too). Problem is the bike fits me, but not twisty turny trails... S5/equivalent fits the trails way better, I just took the S5 SJ Evo out and felt like a flicky, nimble shredder!! So at what point is ideal reach negated by wheelbase? I would deffo go to S5 in the future
Being 6ft 6, I've found the reach of the Stumpy Evo S6 to fit great (and assuming other bikes with 530 or so reaches would be...
Being 6ft 6, I've found the reach of the Stumpy Evo S6 to fit great (and assuming other bikes with 530 or so reaches would be a great fit too). Problem is the bike fits me, but not twisty turny trails... S5/equivalent fits the trails way better, I just took the S5 SJ Evo out and felt like a flicky, nimble shredder!! So at what point is ideal reach negated by wheelbase? I would deffo go to S5 in the future
Totally. After riding an XL G1 with 535mm reach, 450mm rear center and 1350mm wheelbase I can say that's a good fit proportionally but definitely on the long side for good trail manners. The G1 has a crazy slack head angle <63'. I figure 535mm of reach, a 440mm rear end, mullet wheels and 64' head angle should still give me good fit but the manoeuvrability I wish I had. I'm going to try a Nicolai Saturn 16 in XL but set up shorter and tighter.
With my recent bikes I've gradually gone up from 470mm and I'm currently at 510mm (Norco Optic, XL). I'm 6'2" and have pretty regular proportions. So...
With my recent bikes I've gradually gone up from 470mm and I'm currently at 510mm (Norco Optic, XL). I'm 6'2" and have pretty regular proportions. So far I haven't actually found any drawbacks to riding a longer bike. I wouldn't want to miss out on the added high-speed stability.
I'm willing to try 520-530mm Reach for my next bike. I'll keep going up until I find the point of diminishing returns or a straight up disadvantage.
I'm beginning to think that, at 190 cm (6'3") and 525 mm reach I'm more or less there. I need to try out a shorter reach bike to confirm.
Like mentioned, the problem is in the twisties. And coming back from more or less half a year off the bike it was a pain to ride as I was spooked and cautious, hanging off the rear of the bike. Building back the confidence I have moved into the proper position again, but the bike just doesn't work hanging off the back.
Being 6ft 6, I've found the reach of the Stumpy Evo S6 to fit great (and assuming other bikes with 530 or so reaches would be...
Being 6ft 6, I've found the reach of the Stumpy Evo S6 to fit great (and assuming other bikes with 530 or so reaches would be a great fit too). Problem is the bike fits me, but not twisty turny trails... S5/equivalent fits the trails way better, I just took the S5 SJ Evo out and felt like a flicky, nimble shredder!! So at what point is ideal reach negated by wheelbase? I would deffo go to S5 in the future
Totally. After riding an XL G1 with 535mm reach, 450mm rear center and 1350mm wheelbase I can say that's a good fit proportionally but definitely on...
Totally. After riding an XL G1 with 535mm reach, 450mm rear center and 1350mm wheelbase I can say that's a good fit proportionally but definitely on the long side for good trail manners. The G1 has a crazy slack head angle <63'. I figure 535mm of reach, a 440mm rear end, mullet wheels and 64' head angle should still give me good fit but the manoeuvrability I wish I had. I'm going to try a Nicolai Saturn 16 in XL but set up shorter and tighter.
The G1 should be very long, but yeah, 535 reach and 550 rear end doesn't really fit with a 1350 wheelbase with a sub 63° headangle. Mine with 525 reach, 445 rear end and a 65,5° headangle is 1292 mm in the wheelbase.
The G1 should be very long, but yeah, 535 reach and 550 rear end doesn't really fit with a 1350 wheelbase with a sub 63° headangle...
The G1 should be very long, but yeah, 535 reach and 550 rear end doesn't really fit with a 1350 wheelbase with a sub 63° headangle. Mine with 525 reach, 445 rear end and a 65,5° headangle is 1292 mm in the wheelbase.
The G1 should be very long, but yeah, 535 reach and 550 rear end doesn't really fit with a 1350 wheelbase with a sub 63° headangle...
The G1 should be very long, but yeah, 535 reach and 550 rear end doesn't really fit with a 1350 wheelbase with a sub 63° headangle. Mine with 525 reach, 445 rear end and a 65,5° headangle is 1292 mm in the wheelbase.
Sure it does.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTawjrfXMFNlhEcCKGRg5ZSwCmyOvhRr6amn0GcPGP1isaP5JNDkcXI-gvOhHddh2x_YkTTFPXfCEVI/pubhtml#
You'd be surprised how much that head angle accounts for. Each degree slacker means another 1cm+ added to the wheelbase.
Versus yours...
The G1 should be very long, but yeah, 535 reach and 550 rear end doesn't really fit with a 1350 wheelbase with a sub 63° headangle...
The G1 should be very long, but yeah, 535 reach and 550 rear end doesn't really fit with a 1350 wheelbase with a sub 63° headangle. Mine with 525 reach, 445 rear end and a 65,5° headangle is 1292 mm in the wheelbase.
Sure it does.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTawjrfXMFNlhEcCKGRg5ZSwCmyOvhRr6amn0GcPGP1isaP5JNDkcXI-gvOhHddh2x_YkTTFPXfCEVI/pubhtml#
You'd be surprised how much that head angle accounts for. Each degree slacker means another 1cm+ added to the wheelbase.
Versus yours...
Long reach and wheelbase, making shit riders less shit
All this has me confused about is how stack affects a bikes performance in combination with reach. Comparing the 430/614 and the 435/590 the 590 stack I struggled to get the front wheel up as well as I can with the 614. It’s hard to say what wins on cornering, but I think overall the 614 has been a better fit for moving the bike around. I would think there is a stack height that it is too much stack, but clearly I don’t know. I also rode the Stumpy S3 (448/626) and I did start to get used to it, but I think I still preferred the maneuverability of my Switchblade in tights and where picking the front end up was more necessary.
A couple bikes I’m considering are 427/625 and 450/616. Since one is shorter and higher will the two feel similar? How does the stack play into it?
Yeah, it's safer because it's more stable and everything, at the same speed! But are you going at the same speed? Or are you doing mach chicken because the bike is much faster now? I know it's the latter for me since I've gone for a long 29er. That's the issue I have. It's safer in general, but when you inevitably fudge it up, the consequences are much higher.
Also, long reach and tiredness, there are often comments that long bikes require riding over the front a lot. Does anyone else also have problems with the legs giving up? I've mentioned I'm on 525 mm of reach at 190 cm. I have noodles for arms and somewhat strong legs for my physique (still not strong though). Invariably it's the legs that give up for me, I often need to stretch them if the descents are a bit longer. Arms are never a problem for me, not even arm pump from the brakes for example. Not even after 10, 15 minutes or half an hour of straight descending. It's possible (likely) I'm doing something wrong, but yeah...
Is there a XCrider in this?
Come to think of it, technically better, practically a lot more cumbersome. Carry on.
Are long front, short rear bikes the 911s of MTB then?
It's been a bumpy transition, as my previous bike was 77mm shorter reach and 6 degree's steeper Ha!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4P0K8wyt8U
I'm willing to try 520-530mm Reach for my next bike. I'll keep going up until I find the point of diminishing returns or a straight up disadvantage.
edit: typos
Like mentioned, the problem is in the twisties. And coming back from more or less half a year off the bike it was a pain to ride as I was spooked and cautious, hanging off the rear of the bike. Building back the confidence I have moved into the proper position again, but the bike just doesn't work hanging off the back.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTawjrfXMFNlhEcCKGRg5ZS…
You'd be surprised how much that head angle accounts for. Each degree slacker means another 1cm+ added to the wheelbase.
Versus yours, mine gains 10mm from the reach. 1302.
5mm from the rear center. 1307.
3' from the heat tube angle. 1347. ish
Post a reply to: How Much Reach is Too Much Reach?