Forgive me, I may have gotten the wrong end of the stick, but there’s been a lot of talk about the YT Capra and whenever it comes up, people talk about it being a bit short and going up a size.

For years I’ve ridden a medium frame, I’ve had GTs, Spesh, Cove, Norco and Lapierre all medium and whilst they’ve all felt a bit alien at first they’ve all fitted me well once I’ve got used to it.

I was at FOD yesterday and they had a Demo day on, queues were too long and I was too short on time to actually get on a demo bike, but I got talking to great lad who let me sit on his (thanks again if you’re a STWer) it was a large and felt, okay but noticeably longer than my G-Spot.

A quick look online today shows me that in actual fact the Capra medium is a little bit longer than my G-Spot medium 22.8″ to 22.88″ which I like a lot.

Am I doing it wrong?

Is the desire for a longer top tube a current fashion or a ‘thing’?
Does perhaps the Capra measure less than they say it does?
Other?

Is there a scientific method for working out what size you should have – I’m 5′ 10″ – which always puts me in the medium bracket for bikes – but I’m “all torso and no legs” Ape shape.

A quick look online today shows me that in actual fact the Capra medium is a little bit longer than my G-=Spot medium 22.8″ to 22.88″ which I like a lot.

What size stem? And .08 on an inch is about this much ”…

I’ve got a 60mm stem, the Capra comes with 50mm so the Capra frame is 20mm longer and my steam is 10mm longer making the capra medium 10mm longer than my G-Spot all things considered – well within the range of the seat rails I’d guess.

I don’t buy into the mahoosive top tube trend but 22.8″ is short for someone 5’10 with long upper body.

the Capra frame is 20mm longer

How does that work with the figures in your original post? 22.8″ > 22.88″?

Don’t forget to factor in stem length too…
Although TTs have lengthened, so have stem-lengths been reduced.

Top tubes (or at least reach) are definitely getting longer for this sort of bike, what year is the G-spot?

The long toptube, short stem, wide bar thing is definitely In but it does seem to make sense. I wouldn’t like to say better or worse but it’s the one thing I’d like to change on my big bike, try an extra inch in the toptube, and it’s fairly average for a 2010 medium.

Stevet1 – Member

I don’t buy into the mahoosive top tube trend but 22.8″ is short for someone 5’10 with long upper body.

the Capra frame is 20mm longer

How does that work with the figures in your original post? 22.8″ > 22.88″?

It doesn’t I converted 0.8″ into new money instead of 0.08″ my mistake – it would make the Capra slightly shorter than my current bike which isn’t the direction I wanted to go.

Sounds like the Large is the way to go then.

G-Spot is 2013, but they’re all the same (bar the seat tube).

I think a lot of people are still stuck on the relatively old-fashioned sizing advice of “buy the smallest frame possible and run a long stem / extra long layback post coz iz dead chuckable innit”.

Chuckable = a word that needs consigning to Room 101 alongside “radical” and “gnar”. 😆

Modern geometry = longer top tube, shorter stem, slack head angle. Spend a bit of time on such a bike and it just feels right. I can’t see this fashion going away any time soon as it works so well.

However, people seem to be looking at the newer geometry figures and forgetting to fathom in the short stem factor i.e. you get people trying to size up based on what they are currently riding already.

e.g.

580mm top tube / 90mm stem = 670mm overall

620 top tube / 50 stem = 670mm overall

Also ETT is getting more and more meaningless (not that it was ever very useful) with funky shaped tubes, different wheelsize etc.

I think people are getting too obsessed with ‘fit’ now, we’ve gone all roadie with regards to sizing up our bikes perfectly.

If you ride your MTB like a road bike, sat in a fixed position for hours on end then I could understand it….but MTBers don’t do that.

On a typical uplift day my saddle gets dropped for the day and I spend each run stood on the pedals moving around all over the place. Even on an XC type day I sometimes use a dropper post and spend half the time stood up again.
When talking to On-One a few years ago about whether to get a 16 or 18 inch bike they said: it’s easier to size up a small bike with layback seat posts, longer stems etc than to try and shrink a frame that’s too large, with a frame that’s too big you’re stuck and will end up selling it, riding a bike with not enough standover clearance is a horrible feeling and will hold you back….they were right, I bought the 16 and loved the feeling of a small nimble bike underneath me.

My perfect size seems to be 17 but a lot of firms only offer 16 or 18….I always go smaller and play around with moving the saddle on its rails, bar position etc until it fits perfectly….exception to this rule is with full suspension where an 18 can fit well if it has a top tube that slopes away enough, my current Giant Trance does this so is fine, most HTs don’t so I always opt for a smaller HT.

Ultimately we’re talking about millimetres and sixteenths of an inch here and there so i believe in a smaller frame still, I know that’s not ‘on trend’ but the splayed out ‘superman’ position some of these new long top tube bikes put me in is disconcerting when pointing down hill!
Obviously if you are hitting your knees on the bars or stem then your frame is too small!

I prioritise standover first then reach second but I’m only 5ft 9ins and my riding tends to be gravity biased so I look after the wedding tackle first and foremost!….large frames make me wince just looking at them.

Is the desire for a longer top tube a current fashion or a ‘thing’?

I’m 6’3″ with long arms and I’ve noticed that since bikes started being stretched out I can buy a bike that fits me properly for the first time.

Having spent the 90’s riding a small or medium xc bike to get some standover room for ‘gnarly’ riding then the 00’s riding ‘freeride’ style bikes. With hindsight they were all tiny. My first Large Stumpjumper Evo was a revelation and now I’m spoiled for choice.

Having a roomy toptube and a longer wheelbase is definitely a ‘thing’. I ride so much faster with much less fatigue that I used to. As you say you’re in the middle so no need to go mad.

They also have a long’ish wheelbase, so super slack and short’ist toptube is the compromise?
Long toptube super slack = Barge?

Ultimately we’re talking about millimetres and sixteenths of an inch here and there so i believe in a smaller frame still, I know that’s not ‘on trend’ but the splayed out ‘superman’ position some of these new long top tube bikes put me in is disconcerting when pointing down hill!

So is it millimetres that mean little, or massive changes that have you stretched out like superman? You seem to change your mind halfway through that paragraph

I dont understand the reach thing and how its not linked to Ett.

My current bike has the same Ett as my previous bike and the reach is actually longer but yet it still feels to small in the cockpit area whereas my previous bike felt idea?

how does that work?

deviant – Member

I think people are getting too obsessed with ‘fit’ now, we’ve gone all roadie with regards to sizing up our bikes perfectly.

If you ride your MTB like a road bike, sat in a fixed position for hours on end then I could understand it….but MTBers don’t do that.

TBH I don’t think it’s that, these are changes that are coming from the downhill/gravity side… Bigger, longer, wider, slacker, none of that’s for “riding your mtb like a road bike”, it’s for riding your trailbike more like a downhill bike. I suppose you could say, about shifting the compromises.

My current bike has the same Ett as my previous bike and the reach is actually longer but yet it still feels to small in the cockpit area whereas my previous bike felt idea?

how does that work?

If the seat angle is significantly steeper on your new bike then although the ETT is the same your seat will be further forward (assuming your seat is raised above where the ETT would be measured too which it almost certainly is).
Out of the saddle though it should definitely feel longer as reach is independent of seat angle.
Final consideration would be if the head angle is slacker and you have a few spacers then the distance between saddle and bars will also be reduced both seated and standing.

Am I doing it wrong?

I think it’s the case that you can read far too much opinion of “experts” on the internet.
The Capra has a very steep seat angle, which means that while the top tube appears short, the reach is not actually that short at all. It’s not new school long, but it’s certainly not short.
It is also very slack, so the front wheel is quite far in front, so it’s not really as short feeling as people make out.

I think YT’s sizing recommendations are slightly off, and it could do with an XL, but if you are used to a medium in your previous bike, then a medium capra is probably fine.

I rode a Medium Capra on Saturday at the FOD. I rode Red route which I’d ridden in the morning on my (10 year old) Orange 5.

The Capra did feel short, but after about 10 minutes didn’t feel wrong. The slackness and flat pedals took more getting used to than the length.

I did have a sit on a Large. I’m 5′ 10 and with the Reverb in the fully up position I wouldn’t be able to ride it.

Legend, most people know what size they take and the variations between manufacturers is small enough in my experience that a 17 from Kona may be different to a 17 from Saracen but the difference will be small and some jiggery-pokery with seat rails, stems etc will ensure a good fit.
That’s when the sizing differences are just millimetres and why it makes me smile that people won’t buy a bike they haven’t sat on.

What feels weird at the moment (and I’ll use my Trance as the example) is being told that I need the large size for the correct reach.
I could easily ride the small (16 inch) and nearly bought it but decided the top tube dropped enough on the medium (18 inch) for standover to be ok so went with that, to compensate for a larger frame and longer reach I’ve come down to a 35mm stem….but current advice both from the mags and on here was to buy the large, I tried it and the position was horrible and trying to come shorter than a 35mm stem is nigh on impossible.

Difference from the 16/small (that I nearly bought) to the 20/large (that I was advised to buy) is not merely millimetres, so I did the sensible thing and settled on the 18/medium.

Some of the guff (in Dirt mag in particular) about people needing to buy L and XL frames to get the correct reach would put a lot of people on the wrong size bikes, if a frame feels big and intimidating when you throw a leg over it then it probably is too big for you, most of us know what size bike we take (me 16-18) but current thinking muddies the water for a lot of people and had me trying out a 20 inch version which was just ridiculous.

As On-One said to me, you can size a bike up to make it fit but if you buy a bike that’s too big you’re stuffed essentially.

P-Jay, I’d try and borrow a ride on a medium one but failing that and ignoring all the above I’d probably look to get the large and use a shorter stem. Changing from a 50mm to a 40mm stem on my bike I much prefer the 40mm.

As On-One said to me, you can size a bike up to make it fit but if you buy a bike that’s too big you’re stuffed essentially.

Not quite true though is it? If you buy a modern/slack/ENDURO bike that’s got too short a reach, putting a longer stem on it might help for comfort but you’ve just **** the handling

most people know what size they take

Not sure about that TBH.

Think you’ve made the right choice BTW OP. I’m shorter than you and thought that I was on the borderline myself when considering one.

deviant
Some of the guff (in Dirt mag in particular) about people needing to buy L and XL frames to get the correct reach would put a lot of people on the wrong size bikes, if a frame feels big and intimidating when you throw a leg over it then it probably is too big for you

Most modern #Enduro frames have a decently low standover – the reach is longer but the top tube isn’t higher. Case in point, my Strive. It’s the biggest size they make (Large, with “race” geometry). The top tube is low so I’ve got a good 4″ extra seatpost showing. I’m 6′ so not exactly a giant.

To be honest, it sounds as though you’re banging an outdated drum, deviant. “Small and flickable” is late 90s ideology that came about because you had to buy a small frame to get reasonable standover – and that’s definitely not the case any more.

The statement about longer bikes in Dirt (and several others) is from a few years ago – actually a lot of manufacturers have taken this sentiment seriously and these days bikes are longer without being higher. The other change is (as already mentioned) steeper seat tubes to put the seat in a better position for climbing. This has the effect of meaning that an increase in reach (BB to bars) doesn’t translate into a longer top tube length (or ETT). So the in OP’s case, I suspect the Capra will feel significantly longer than the G-Spot even though the top tubes are similar.

For the first time in my riding career, I feel like I’m on the right size bike and it’s great (and faster, both up and down hill). That said, I’m sure that some people enjoy riding shorter bikes, and I suspect it makes technical stuff a bit more exciting which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Stevet1 – Member

P-Jay, I’d try and borrow a ride on a medium one but failing that and ignoring all the above I’d probably look to get the large and use a shorter stem. Changing from a 50mm to a 40mm stem on my bike I much prefer the 40mm.

That’s the plan, I won’t be able to buy it for months yet (still saving) so hopefully I’ll manage to catch another demo day and have a proper test.

In fairness to the YT lads their demo set-up way pretty impressive, they had a stand to check sizes etc and they did a pretty comprehensive suspension set-up for everyone – it’s just a shame I had no idea it was there until I saw it.

There’s an added complexity for me, I’ve got limited range of movement in my right arm – so a bit of extra reach can mean I run out of reach when the bike moves away from me – it’s jarring and a bit painful, more worrying though my left arm generally keeps going so the bars turn when I don’t want them too.

Superficial – Member

deviant
Some of the guff (in Dirt mag in particular) about people needing to buy L and XL frames to get the correct reach would put a lot of people on the wrong size bikes, if a frame feels big and intimidating when you throw a leg over it then it probably is too big for you

Most modern #Enduro frames have a decently low standover – the reach is longer but the top tube isn’t higher. Case in point, my Strive. It’s the biggest size they make (Large, with “race” geometry). The top tube is low so I’ve got a good 4″ extra seatpost showing. I’m 6′ so not exactly a giant.

To be honest, it sounds as though you’re banging an outdated drum, deviant. “Small and flickable” is late 90s ideology that came about because you had to buy a small frame to get reasonable standover – and that’s definitely not the case any more.

The statement about longer bikes in Dirt (and several others) is from a few years ago – actually a lot of manufacturers have taken this sentiment seriously and these days bikes are longer without being higher. The other change is (as already mentioned) steeper seat tubes to put the seat in a better position for climbing. This has the effect of meaning that an increase in reach (BB to bars) doesn’t translate into a longer top tube length (or ETT). So the in OP’s case, I suspect the Capra will feel significantly longer than the G-Spot even though the top tubes are similar.

For the first time in my riding career, I feel like I’m on the right size bike and it’s great (and faster, both up and down hill). That said, I’m sure that some people enjoy riding shorter bikes, and I suspect it makes technical stuff a bit more exciting which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Well said. Agree 100%

To be honest, it sounds as though you’re banging an outdated drum, deviant. “Small and flickable” is late 90s ideology that came about because you had to buy a small frame to get reasonable standover – and that’s definitely not the case any more.

You can add ‘chuckable’ into that little genre of oddness. Generally championed by people who don’t seem to ‘flick/chuck’ etc anyway, unless they are all closet 4X racers.

There is a limit going the other way though, and it’s good people want to push the boundaries.

The Capra is pretty average in terms of reach numbers now. At 6’2″ I certainly would’t want one.

I’m 5 10 on a large Capra. I wouldn’t want it any smaller. I run a 35mm stem but I am used to a DH bike.

Nice wheelbase in a large.

182cm here and just gone for a large Reign that has a 557mm reach (20+mm longer than a large Capra) – it felt perfect. I wouldn’t want to go any shorter.

It feels confidence inspiring in the same way that throwing a leg over a big motorbike does.

I’m somewhere around 5′ 9-10″ and managed to have a ride on a large capra at the FoD. I wanted to try a large as I currently ride a medium 2014 giant trance, and felt I’d like a bit more reach.

At first it felt really odd, and possibly the wrong choice, but then I realised that it wasn’t just the reach it was the handlebars, they had been rolled forwards. So after quickly sorting that out, by rolling the bars into a more neutral position, I was much more at home. Didn’t really like the shape of the handlebars but it felt a lot better than before.

While riding along seated I did feel I was a bit more weighted forwards but once things got rough and the seat was dropped I really started to like the longer reach. I felt I could more my weight about easily, but could easily stay central didn’t feel like I was getting pitched forwards when hitting big bumps/kickers.

I feel it’s all personal preference but manufacturers do seem to be taking note. (A medium transition patrol or giant reign is about the same reach as the large capra.)

As for the capra, it really does ride well and jumps very nicely.
My personal set up would be to change the raceface bars for renthals and maybe swap the 50mm stem for a 40mm which I think would help get it feeling spot on.

[Edit]: Forgot to mention, the 150mm reverb was pretty much on the edge of what I can could with it slid down to the collar in the frame. I’d defintely swap it out with a 125mm just for piece of mind and fine adjustment for me.

gaz552 – Member

[Edit]: Forgot to mention, the 150mm reverb was pretty much on the edge of what I can could with it slid down to the collar in the frame. I’d defintely swap it out with a 125mm just for piece of mind and fine adjustment for me.

That’s your real stupid right there, for some reason tons of bikes have tall seat masts now so you see tons of reverbs just barely poking out of the frame… My Reverb sits damn nearly on the minimum insertion mark, sometimes I want to get low, so why take take away that option for the sort of bike that’s supposed to get used hardest?

Northwind – Member

gaz552 – Member

[Edit]: Forgot to mention, the 150mm reverb was pretty much on the edge of what I can could with it slid down to the collar in the frame. I’d defintely swap it out with a 125mm just for piece of mind and fine adjustment for me.

That’s your real stupid right there, for some reason tons of bikes have tall seat masts now so you see tons of reverbs just barely poking out of the frame… My Reverb sits damn nearly on the minimum insertion mark, sometimes I want to get low, so why take take away that option for the sort of bike that’s supposed to get used hardest?

Because with the 150mm dropper, I was probably slightly over extending my legs when the post was fully up. A 125mm dropper would allow me to get the correct/comfortable leg extension.

I think it was one of chris porters articles that commented on the fact that seat tubes grew by 30-40mm per frame size but top tube only grew by 10-20mm which is stupid, when you consider the fact than you can raise or lower a seat post by quite a bit, and shorter seat tubes would allow more people to run 150mm droppers so the seat is well out of the way when tackling steep downhills.

Again, seems to highlight why sitting on the bike is a really good idea…

Over the last 10 years standovers have dropped a lot, there are bikes that I can’t ride for reach that I can standover easily so for those with long arms you can get away with a bigger frame. On both my bikes I could probably have got large but I ended up with medium, at times they do feel a little short and the saddle is on the back of the rails but the fit is right on the line. Wide bars let me get away with it on the trail bike with a shorter stem than would work on older bars too.

The impact of seat tube angle is also key especially if you are at the end of the size range, again hard to pick from a bit of paper until you know how much post you want up.

XL Capra is here…
Check out @mbrmagazine’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/mbrmagazine/status/600361500549771265?s=09

The new school Geo thing works, its not just about sitting on it, once you’ve ridden one on something vaguely steel and techy, you feel more confident, in control and less fatigued and your old ‘flickable’ short TT bike feels cramped and inefficient.

It is a combination of the long reach, steeper seat tube, slack ha, short stem, wide bars to make it all work

Actual pic

@Gaz, reading my post again it might have seemed like I was having a pop at you, hope that’s not how you took it! What you’ve done makes total sense, it’s the bike design that’s daft.

@RobZ do you have the 150mm Reverb in your Capra?

On paper the medium Capra seems to be same size as a small rallon and the large capra the same as a medium
rallon.
Obviously they might ride completely differently, but has any one ridden both? Does say, a medium rallon feel the same as a large Capra?