hey folks,
bit of a story, bit of just airing thoughts and a bit of wondering if your experiences match.
I have had a Norco Optic for about 3 years now and have enjoyed my time upon it. At 5 foot 9 i just crept into the large sizing (always ridden a medium), which has a 480mm reach. Quite a chunk bigger than my previous rocky mountain. I did a car park test on it and it felt all good.
Over the years, i have ridden it everywhere. Bike parks, local trails, XC bimbles, Megavalanche, Finale Ligure EWS tracks, off piste stuff and trail centres. For a short travel bike, it rips.
Recently i have started to have a tough time keeping my feet planted on the flat pedals. So i decided to give clips another go after so many years. A cheat over improving technique, but it solved my issue.
Fast forward to last weekend. I went up to Petersfield to ride with two mates. About to set off and i look down to see the main seal on my rear shock all out of shape. Not sure how, but it needed a strip down and fix. thankfully one buddy has 4 bikes at his disposal, so he lent me his Santa Cruz Megatower V1, in size large.
What an absolute machine. I felt right at home and noticed some significant differences to my Optic.
Firstly was the increased amount of travel. No longer was i feeling every root, rock or undulation. so smooth.
The biggest change was the reach and positioning of me on the bike when in 'attack' mode. The reach is shorter anyway (approx. 12mm), but my friend has his setup with a super short stem with a few spacers under it and a 170mm fork (usually 160mm).
This meant that I didn't have to try and weight the front wheel so much (which i feel i need to on the Optic), which in turn meant it was far easier to drop my heels (again, body less forward on the bike), which then made it easier to look up and see further up the trail.
I am surmising that the shorter reach, plus shorter stem, plus spacers under the stem and taller fork have all combined to give the bike a shorter, more compact reach and effective top tube... aka a smaller bike?
This seems to suit me far better than the longer setup i currently run.
So can i make my bike shorter? A shorter 35mm stem (to replacer the 42.5mm stem on there), more spacers under the stem? Whilst i have ridden for many years, i don't fanny around with the manufacturers setup very often, so my knowledge is lacking in regards to this sort of thing or if these changes would ruin how the bike rode etc.
Or should i continue to keep my eye out for a Megatower V1 frame and try and replicate the great bike i rode?!
Has anyone else realise that super long bikes might not be for you? Or only work well in the steeps of British Columbia?!
thoughts, feedback, correction of my theories are welcome!
I know you've read several/many of my posts... so i'll just say 'welcome brother'
🙂
So can i make my bike shorter?
Yes, shorter stem like you say
more spacers under the stem?
Have you got spacers above the stem? Then move them under, otherwise get some higher rise bars instead
Do bear in mind that Optic and Megatower are 2 very different bikes. Do you just need/want a shorter and higher Optic, or a big Enduro machine?
Try higher bars and/or moving spacers - I think a lot of us benefit from having our bars much higher with LLS bikes. I'm running 40mm rise bars and 160mm forks on 29" front wheels which is so much higher than in my 26" days.
Bizarrely I've found that a 50mm stem makes a bike feel less big than a 35mm stem - which I think is because the more stable longer stem gives me the confidence to move my weight forwards so I'm stretching less to reach the bars.
It's such a personal thing and there are so many variables, but it sounds like the longer travel and shorter reach might be suiting your riding style better.
Personally I'm an inch or so shorter than you and my MTBs are 460mm, 485mm and 486mm in reach.
There are definitely days when the shorter reach (and shorter travel) bike is exactly what I want, but other days I enjoy the full LLS experience.
One combination that I think can work really well for an all-rounder is a moderate reach with a sub-63deg head angle, especially if it pedals well.
It's funny you should say this because I used to have a V1 Hightower. By today's standards the XL has a fairly short reach at 475, but I never once thought it was too short. Recently I've had bikes in the low 500mm reach (Aeris 9, 2021 Stumpy and a Kenevo SL).
I've got a feeling they are a bit too long for my taste and whatever I end up on next time, I think I'll size down a bit.
There was a chap who bangs on about something called a RAD factor? I never took any notice of it really. Some people swore by it and other said it was a load of nonsense. I'm curious though now 🙂
Try higher bars and/or moving spacers – I think a lot of us benefit from having our bars much higher with LLS bikes.
Good shout.
That's another key part of the puzzle IME, even on not-so-long bikes.
https://www.pinkbike.com/news/The-World-Cup-Downhill-Signals-the-End-of-Flat-Pedals.html
A decade old (but DH bikes are a bit ahead on the slack front) article suggesting the pedals could be key to this whole thing.
I'm another short bike fan. At a smidge over 6 foot I'm on a Bird ML and Santa cruz L.
Do bear in mind that Optic and Megatower are 2 very different bikes. Do you just need/want a shorter and higher Optic, or a big Enduro machine?
a part of me will be swallowing my own words. Since owning the Optic i have banged on to those around me how you dont need long travel, its more about line choice and optimising what you have.... but having ridden something with a chunk more, i think i am up for enjoying something with a bit more travel. And the V1 Megatower is quite conservative compared to most, so it might be the right mix of travel and geo.
Try higher bars and/or moving spacers
Then move them under, otherwise get some higher rise bars instead
Sounds like some experimenting is required!
We do all appreciate that the 'low' in LLS is reference to the the bottom bracket height don't we? Nothing to do with bar height.
Oddly when I got my (not demoed) Bird Aether 9c in 2021 I was surprised how short it felt JRA. This was coming off a 2009 turner. In reality the extra reach was cancelled out in the sitting position by the much steeper seat angle. The much shorter stem made a difference too I guess.
Biggest difference riding out of the saddle was a change in style - less arse over the back, more sinking into the frame down the steep stuff.
Bizarrely I’ve found that a 50mm stem makes a bike feel less big than a 35mm stem – which I think is because the more stable longer stem gives me the confidence to move my weight forwards so I’m stretching less to reach the bars.
Ah, not just me then. Initally used a 50mm stem on my LLS bike, then swapped to same stem in 35mm length. Didn't like it - felt I wasn't getting my weight far enough forward to properly weight the front wheel. Persevered for a while but eventually swapped back to the 50mm one. Much better. That was a XL Geometron, 535 reach and 187cm me (previous bike was 'only' 470 reach).
I've since swapped to a 520mm reach similar version (G16 instead of the G15 I had) but stuck with the 50mm stem. I think I 'over-reached' myself with the XL G15 initially, so yes perhaps you can go too LLS. Possibly blasphemous to say when talking about Geometrons I know 🙂
Swapping from 20mm to 38mm rise bars made a good difference for me too.
We do all appreciate that the ‘low’ in LLS is reference to the the bottom bracket height don’t we? Nothing to do with bar height.
Yes but i'm not sure that's how things are percieved nowdays, that's kinda how the genre was first formed, but more and more the LLS is more 'cockpit' related in most peoples minds rather than the BB height/drop.
It's moved on a little in a terminology context i think.
Really - I don't see that.
Looking at geometry charts of 2022 notoriously LLS bikes and comparing to bikes from a decade ago I see lower BB heights, but not markedly shorter stack heights (which would directly impact bar height). Though appreciate we ride longer forks now so in certain circumstances at the end of the stroke that even a longer stack can compress up to low bars for a moment or two.
You sure it's not just riders used to older bikes now being older themselves and therefore less flexible and 'dynamic' and blaming it on the bike 😉
MAybe i'm wrong in my perception. That's how it seems to me.. But happy to be incorrect.
You sure it’s not just riders used to older bikes now being older themselves and therefore less flexible and ‘dynamic’ and blaming it on the bike
I think that's deffo a chunk of it, certainly for me anyway and why i find more 'old school' type reach/position is nicer for myself.
You have trouble weighting the front of the Optic and everyone is telling you to put a shorter stem on it.
How is that going to work? Short stems don't make the wheelbase shorter.
"but more and more the LLS is more ‘cockpit’ related in most peoples minds rather than the BB height/drop."
It's definitely not - stack heights are far higher nowadays than they used to be, due to bigger wheels, bigger forks (usually) and then you can add riser bars to that.
You have trouble weighting the front of the Optic and everyone is telling you to put a shorter stem on it.
maybe i worded it wrongly, i don't have too much trouble weighing the front, i guess the feeling is more that i am further forward on the bike, possibly due to the longer reach, which in turn makes it harder to drop my heels, as i am naturally more forward on the bike.
I guess part of it is i haven't really identified this or felt it was a problem, until riding something a bit shorter and taller, which in turn has highlighted these feelings.
I haven't been back on my Optic since riding the Megatower, so potentially it could all be in my head.....?!
You're more than welcome to try my Slayer to see if that helps fully evaluate matey.
I haven’t been back on my Optic since riding the Megatower, so potentially it could all be in my head…..?!
Grass is always greener etc.
It was only extensive riding on a slightly shorter - but still LLS - reach bike that convinced me to try a shorter replacement for mine. I was lucky to then ride both back to back on the same trails, making my decision easier.
i find when riding clips it shifts my foot back on teh pedal and the effect on the body position on teh bike is noticeable. it also effects you physical height on teh bike as the pedal/shoe stack above the axle is greater.
you probably noticed the compounded effect of the extra reach from teh foot being further back and the long frame and the low front end.
heavy feet light hands is the mantra is it not?. you cant drop yer heels (as much) if you are stretching for the bars.
remember bars are also differnt and affect body position. the boggo nukeproof bars with loads of sweep reduce the reach to teh grips by about 20mm over a pair on renthals for instance!
You sure it’s not just riders used to older bikes now being older themselves and therefore less flexible and ‘dynamic’ and blaming it on the bike 😉
I'd say long wheelbases are bailing us middle-aged riders out, as we don't need to be making so many micro-corrections to keep upright and on track.
Personally, I am anti shorter stems (sub 50mm) because they force you to ‘have’ to ride the bike aggressively over the front end to generate front end grip.
I’m 185cm & my bikes vary in size from 470mm reach (FF ebike, so doesn’t need to be as big to increase stability) to ~500mm, which is a touch too long for me personally, but it still works. I would say you are on a fairly big bike for your height (excluding oddities such as Paul Aston / Geometron, which I don’t think are the answer).
Maybe what you are experiencing is a bit more of a balance of reach to chainstay ratio? The Optic has pretty short stays at 435mm - I have a Spur which is almost identical in geometry & it feels like a 4X bike in comparison to some of my other bikes when pushing on down a flow trail.
I don’t think you can isolate reach as the only issue here. Also, clips make a significant difference if you are having foot management issues, dropping heels is almost irrelevant in terms of feel, albeit a bad practice as not doing it massively affects the bikes grip in certain scenarios IMO. Also on a shorter travel bike it makes a bigger noticeable difference. Now we are in winter, my Spur is the only bike left with clips on it until the weather improves.
The low in long low slack definitely refers to the bb height in my head,and that of most people I talk bikes with.
As mentioned above, handlebar heights are getting higher not lower.
As per hobnob,I think the reach to chainstay length ratio affects things massively. And is hugely personal pref.
But there are so many othe differences between different bikes that you ( or rather I) cant really pin handling traits on any one thing.
I have bikes that vary in reach from 455 to 480mm and I like them all. I prefer the one with the longest reach,but probably not because it has the longest reach, but a combination of loads of things that make it my preferred bike
We're still in a transition of understanding LLS. This thread is a perfect example of the different things it means to different people. Mercifully, folk are beginning to realise there's more to it than long reach figures.
I think most of your observations are correct.
maybe i worded it wrongly, i don’t have too much trouble weighing the front, i guess the feeling is more that i am further forward on the bike, possibly due to the longer reach, which in turn makes it harder to drop my heels, as i am naturally more forward on the bike.
Bar height. It you're less hunched to reach the bars, you'll have more range of movement. FWIW, at 6ft, I'm settling on reaches c. 480 to 495. I think you're on the long side for someone of your height. The longer the reach, the taller your bar height needs to be IMO, but theres a balance to be found there with climbing weight distribution and wandery front ends. (Off set by a greater weight distribution to the front wheel due to a more forward position). So, bring your seat forward (and up a little) and raise your bars before shortening you stem.
You can't look at this stuff in isolation though. Steeper seat angle = more reach and higher bars, but if you don't have the wheel out front far enough your weight distribution will be horrendous.
A decade old (but DH bikes are a bit ahead on the slack front) article suggesting the pedals could be key to this whole thing.
Anyone who rides a HT on rough terrain rather than dirt pistes knows this IMO. It's still a preference choice for most of us though. A choice that I suspect is largely made on the basis of where one finds confidence - locked in and secure, or free to bail out immediately.
The low in long low slack definitely refers to the bb height in my head,and that of most people I talk bikes with
That's what it means, no question about it.
I do think it’s easy to go to big and we all have different styles and preferences
I’m 5’9 same as the op and rode a Bird Aeris 145 lt in ML (481mm reach) for nearly 3 years and after an initial period where I was getting faster and faster I found I struggled to get enough weight over the front for fast and flat corners. I had coaching and got better at it but there was always that nagging feeling. Tried a few different length stems etc - 40mm and 32mm etc
Switched to an Aether 7 in medium with maybe a 457 reach and a 50mm stem abs it was a game changer. Still benefitted from aggressive riding but I had so much more front wheel confidence. Obviously it was rougher on stuff like at Antur Stiniog but I enjoyed the bike so much more.
Now on a Transition Sentinel medium - 451mm reach and 50mm stem and 29er - also love this bike. Plenty of front wheel grip but with the bigger wheels and a bit more travel it rocks. Feels more trail than enduro smasher but gives you an easier time on the rough stuff.
You need a new bike/frame with a smaller reach IMO
I’m 5’9 same as the op and rode a Bird Aeris 145 lt in ML (481mm reach) for nearly 3 years and after an initial period where I was getting faster and faster I found I struggled to get enough weight over the front for fast and flat corners. I had coaching and got better at it but there was always that nagging feeling. Tried a few different length stems etc – 40mm and 32mm etc
Switched to an Aether 7 in medium with maybe a 457 reach and a 50mm stem abs it was a game changer. Still benefitted from aggressive riding but I had so much more front wheel confidence.
Those Birds were from their short chainstay days, I believe? So the first one was likely a bit unbalanced front-to-rear.
Your current Sentinel will have a better balance than either IMO.
hmmmm... lots to digest here. Many thanks for all the feedback thus far chaps.
I think i need to firstly get back on the Optic and secondly see if i can try some other bikes to try and nail down what i am feeling. Be it placebo effect or actual improvements.
I have never been uncomfortable on my Optic, but do sometimes feel like i am more of a passenger than being the pilot, but i always put that down to how much input i put in (aka, if i am being lazy or not).
Coincidently, at Ard Rock i got measured on the Atherton stand and they put me on a 470mm reach 'Low' frame. My buddy has a 470mm regular AM150 on order, so will be interesting to have a go on that.
Certainly plenty of food for thought.
oh and i look at the Low in LLS as the BB. kinda assumed everyone did?
Rather than dropping your heels (emphasis on plural!), try to weight your feet evenly and sink between the pedals so your feet form a V and your weight remains centred. This is more important with a longer reach bike.
Dropping the trailing heel extends your leg (reducing vertical compliance), rotates your hips and moves your weight back (unweighting the front). Pushing down centrally over the BB weights the wheels and generates tyre grip. On flats this also allows equal outward pressure with your feet in a V, generating more pedal grip.
Roxy explains it pretty well;
more of a passenger than being the pilot,
less travel will do that. as you reach your comfort limits faster. i ride a rigid singlespeed as an alternative to my suspension bikes and there is definately less control! less speed as well and more sounds of anguish and terror
If you're going to try different stems, measure what's on there if you haven't already. Spec Sheet says 2021 Large Optic has a 45mm stem, but mine arrived with a 55mm stem.
What a great video. Thanks for sharing
If you’re going to try different stems, measure what’s on there if you haven’t already. Spec Sheet says 2021 Large Optic has a 45mm stem, but mine arrived with a 55mm stem.
mine came with a 45mm, but i changed it to a 42.5mm.... just cos i liked the look of the Unite one 🙂
@diggery - i will check the video and oddly watched something about this a while ago. Maybe its time to update my (poor) technique.
less travel will do that.
glad its not exclusive to me!
When was the last time the forks, shock (which sounds like it needs attention) and frame bearings were serviced?
If your feet are being bounced off the pedals and the rear end is well overdue a service, then this is the start of your problems. If I get a year out of a set of frame bearings, I'm doing well!
I'm not keen on bikes with super short back ends and big reaches, the balance is all off and you end up with something that you have to ride off the front, which few of us can, all the time!
G1 515/455
KSL 485/447
Stumpy 480/432
All three of those end up with the same weight split within a percent. I tried the S5 stumpy and wasn't keen, it felt like the same issue my XL smuggler had, the balance was all off, which was made even worse with anglecups.
I had an XL ransom, the back end on that was 465 and it was really stable, but hard work to get the front up, made easier when I mulleted it.
When was the last time the forks, shock (which sounds like it needs attention) and frame bearings were serviced?
fork and shock was just before i did the Mega, so about 6 months ago. Frame bearings admittedly haven't changed in quite a while, but feel smooth when the shock is removed.
I agree with some bikes being imbalanced. I remember reading Enduro mags take on the Commencal Meta SX (or may have been an AM), but they said due to same length chainstays across all sizes, the large and above were inbalanced.
Is there a formula you use to work it out? As i assume headtube angle would come into play with regards to everything in front or behind the BB? Or am i talking out of my backside?! 😛
Long reach is the new short chainstays isn't it. Things get changed from what we're used to, the change can be good but at the extremes it's a bit specialist.
Is there a formula you use to work it out? As i assume headtube angle would come into play with regards to everything in front or behind the BB? Or am i talking out of my backside?! 😛
My understanding about comparing front/rear balance is it's normally chainstay length and reach that are compared (like @SirHC's figures above). Thankfully for someone like me who's on XL sized bikes, the old fashion of the same length chainstays on all frame sizes is becoming less common. Longer reach balanced by longish chainstays puts the rider more centred between the wheels, which I like.
I also look at rear/front balance too because, like you say, HA comes into it. I'm unsure on the value of comparing this though as there's only a small range of variance in chainstay length (generally for 29ers it's 430-455mm ish), whereas front-centre can vary a lot more. Front-centre being BB to front axle, i.e. wheelbase minus chainstay length.
Those Birds were from their short chainstay days, I believe? So the first one was likely a bit unbalanced front-to-rear.
Your current Sentinel will have a better balance than either IMO.
The Aeris wasn’t massively short I don’t think - maybe 430 or 435.
The Aether is though - 425mm chainstays. I liked that though - nice and easy to pop the front wheel in the air and cornered really well. I imagine the balance is worse when you get longer reach than the medium though.
Sentinel is more balanced - think it’s 451 reach vs 440 ish chainstays. I’d say it’s marginally slower then the Aether 145lt through fast rocky stuff just because it’s shorter overall and less stable (plus 10mm less travel at each end) - but literally everywhere else it’s quicker for me. Faster in the corners - I was worried going to 29er would make it harder but it really hasn’t. Plus the big front wheel is more confidence inspiring rolling off drops. Love it.
If you’re anywhere near Bristol you’re welcome to have a go on my Medium Sentinel for comparison purposes. I did consider an Optic when I got the Sentinel but couldn’t get one frame only. Also considered the Bird Aether 9 / 9c (was out of stock) and Nukeproof Reactor (alloy was out of stock and carbon was a bit pricey). Also considered a secondhand Evil Offering - but decided that was a bit too risky.
@joebristol - cool, i will give you a shout if ever your way. Going to a few posts back, when you changed from 481 reach to 451 of the Sentinel, did you test ride or sit on one? Many manufacturers suggest a medium for me, but these reach numbers are around 450ish, which i fear would be too short?
I had a car-park test of a colleagues medium 275 Vitus Sommet, which has a reach of 449mm and once standing it felt like the bars were on my knees (possibly exaggerating for entertainment purposes, but it felt short).... yet in lockdown i rode a Ragley Big Al in medium for a while, which was an equally short reach and it never worried me.
(I fully understand that the sum of a bike size is more than reach mind).
I didn’t test ride no - just bought the frame and went for it. It was just after the Aether 7 came out and I got it a month before lockdowns started in 2020. Running a 50mm stem it just feels right vs the 32mm stem / 482mm reach I had.
I’d say on a shorter reach with a modern steep seat angle it’s sitting down (ETT) that’s more cramped vs older bikes - rather than standing up.
I find in most ranges of bikes there’s almost a gap for people our height - something in the 465mm range would be ideal I reckon. That’s what the atherton calculator suggests for me (but they are way out of budget).
I think only Commencal and Orange have bikes with that sort of reach from last time I looked. Everywhere else is sub 460mm reach for a medium and over 470 for a ML or L.
I find in most ranges of bikes there’s almost a gap for people our height – something in the 465mm range would be ideal I reckon.
yeah, i think you are right.
I appreciate your feedback tho, it is putting my mind to rest with regards to 'sizing down'. Or rather adding more food for thought.... Raaw Madonna... mmmmm 🙂
I currently ride a large Evil Offering and find the back end a bit short. I notice it most when climbing as its quite hard to keep the front end from wandering. Its a 477 reach and 430 chain stay. I would want my next bike to have longer chainstays to balance it for the ups better
There was a different thread recently discussion bar height, where someone described the difference in low and high bar height as being pulled forward versus being able to push on the bars, that description really resonated with me. I feel the same with reach too.
Im 5ft9.5, leggy, had bikes with reach up to 475mm, subsequently came back to 460mm felt better, gone even further back to 450mm with things getting even better. All with 35mm stem. I run "high" bars. Flat pedals. Same feeling as the description above, it's the feeling of being pulled forward (long) versus pushing on the bars (shorter). I think flexibility and how active you are on the bikes comes into it too.
So yeah, different sizes work better for different people, but yeah totally, longer isn't always better, shorter isn't going to be always better either.
