Forum menu
Im sure this has done before* but....
Im 6'2" and ride XL or 19/20" bikes. My 2016 27.5 big bike has a 442 reach and I love it. My slightly more recent 29ers have 470-480, and when the going is fast yeah Im liking it, good for 90% of my riding. But when things slow down, on super steep, nadgery, picking your way down/around wheel catching stuff (think dollywagon water bars or other more natural stuff) I dont want to be at full stretch when my front wheel might hook up on something. When I replace the big bike, not imminent but I've been looking, all the potentials seem to have 490-500+ reach. Even if I size down to L a 480 reach is still common. I havent got the cajones to "just let go the brakes and steam roller everything" so what do other people do?
I know 1 number in isolation doesnt mean everything but for eg orange stage 6, 505mm? Mega 27.5 500mm. Thats loooong! ~60mm longer than my current big bike
*I tried the forum search but keep getting results with a recent timestamp but are actually from 5+ yrs ago
Yeah I like a high front end too. Already running short stems, high bars and using all of the ~200mm steerer available. 470+ seems just a bit too long for me for this edge case stuff <br /><br />(ive got other bikes to do the 90% I spec my big bike for this nadgery 10% edge case - lakes hikeabike type of thing)
I know we’re all different in our proportions and likes but at your height 470-480mm should be fine (if shorter than a lot of people ride).
At 5’9 with short arms and torso I managed with a bike of 481mm reach (27.5” wheels) but I struggled with the length of it stood up on very steep and sharp corners and also fast and very flat corners. I really had to work hard to pop the front wheel in the air too.
Sized down to 450-460mm reach and that’s my happy place. But you’re much taller than me.
You also need to think about the stack height (a lot of bikes have too low a stack in the bigger sizes) and also the wheelbase. <br /><br />
If you go super slack and long chainstays then it’s going to be harder work round the sharp corners like you mention.
You could look at something mullet so you have the smaller back wheel and shorter stays - but also try not to get something with a really slack head angle too. Maybe look for something around a 65 degree headangle as this is slack enough for most tech off piste but not so slack you feel like the steering is sluggish.
That said if you run a slack headangle with a short offset fork and short ish stem I’ve found there’s no real downside for me on a slack HA. Running a Transition Sentinel with 42mm offset lyrik and 50mm stem. Plenty of spacers under the stem and a 63.6 degree head angle. 450mm reach.
I’m 5’11 and on a bike with a 475mm reach.
It’s got super adjustable geometry (Stumpjumper EVO) and I find it depends very much on which head angle I’ve got it set too. 63 degrees and it’s a handful, 65.5 degrees and it’s quite manoeuvrable.
"I really had to work hard to pop the front wheel in the air too."
This is kind of my car park test. If I cant pop the front wheel easily on the flat, Im gonna be too nose heavy when getting down rocky steppy stuff. This means I have to consciously move my weight forward for loose corners otherwise I understeer/washout, but worth the trade off (on this bike) imo.<br />
<br />And yeah slack angles mean using more steerer shortens the effective reach but mitigating 60mm is gonna require a hell of a long steerer (and bike manufacturers seem to precut them quite short anyway)<br /><br />I reckon im long leg, shorter torso btw.
Personally I think the numbers don't matter all that much as long as you're not on a bike that's completely the wrong size, it's more what you're used too and personal preference.
I moved from a 2012 bike to a 2021 bike and at first it felt really weird and I experienced many of the things described above. I was constantly getting pedal strikes, the bike felt slow and sluggish in corners, I was really struggling to lift the front wheel/unweight the rear, bunnyhops were much more difficult, the front wheel felt like it was constantly going to wash out, when the bike was leant over in a corner my toes would sometimes brush the floor which was terrifying, I could go on.
Now I'm used to the bike I don't experience any of these problems.
My old full suss, (shorter reach) worked better with a low front end, my geometron works better a higher front end. I'm running 35mm high bars and 15mm of spacers.
You might need to adjust your riding style a touch, I find I stand up straighter now, and manuals, just pull back harder 😁
“This is kind of my car park test. If I cant pop the front wheel easily on the flat, Im gonna be too nose heavy when getting down rocky steppy stuff.”
When you’ve got a longer front centre from a combination of longer reach and slacker head angle, there’s less weight on the front wheel on steep stuff, much less.
I think i know what you are experiencing. When i moved from my last bike (Hightower V1) to my current bike (Cotic Jeht) the change in geo took a good while to get used to. On the Santa Cruz my style on obstacles was to pick up the front end and unweight it. When i got the Jeht i was taken aback at how much harder it was to pick up the front. Now i'm used to it and my riding style has switched from "weight back, pick up the front" to "weight centre and getting low (chin over stem / arms bent outwards etc) and just leaving the front wheel on the ground.
TLDR - I'm now more comfortable on steeper and more gnarly terrain than ever before. But it took a while.
Yes, new technique is needed for modern geometry.
I'm similar to you Donk - I like short bikes and I have a similar car park test. And I absolutely don't want to change my technique. I like lifting my front wheel over stuff and hopping around. It's fun.
But for various reasons I've ended up on a much longer bike (still probably only average reach for my height - c.465 static reach on a hardtail, wheelbase c.1230 at 6 foot). There are pros and cons to the extra length and I'm not 100% sure I like it but slow speed tech is good, downhill at least.
With a high front end it hops well (tiny chainstays help) and I can hoik the front wheel around easily. The extra length in the front means it's better at steep rolls as I'm basically never going over the bars. You said you don't have the cajones to let it roll - maybe that's the short bikes? I never had a huge problem with letting the brakes off but I'm definitely do it more now. Slow tight corners are fine too, although I maybe hop the rear around more than I used to.
That said, I do miss some of the nimbleness in fast tight corners and it's a bit ponderous on really tight flat xc, so I won't be going any longer. But downhill slow tech is really good.
I dont want to be at full stretch when my front wheel might hook up on something
Full stretch is no longer required on a modern geo. Check out people like Remy Metallier and Yoann Barlli on youtube. They stay centred and low - i.e. 'in' the bike when descending steep stuff.
The reaches you quote sounds fine, just dont buy anything with short chainstays - the longer the chainstay the more of your weight goes through the front wheel. So for someone your size you will probably want at least a 445mm chainstay. I am 5'11" riding a 475mm reach with 440mm chainstays and that feels great for me, could go a bit longer on both if I wanted more stability. Remy Metaillier is around 5'7" riding a 455mm reach with 445mm chainstays on some of the steepest, sketchiest terrain in the world...
One thing I noticed when going from a shorter to a longer bike is that it has much less propensity to throw me over the bars when I’m tired and lose concentration.
Thanks for input people.
" Remy Metaillier... on some of the steepest, sketchiest terrain in the world"
aye but how pros and how mere mortals ride the same stuff is very different innit, Im probably trying to roll off a drop, unweighting the front end to stop it tucking under when it hits that rock straight infront of me, meanwhile Remy just hits it 10mph faster and launches off it. Kinda what I meant about cajones. A long bike to hit stuff fast and launch off things sounds eminently sensible, but does it still work for slow thrutchy moves? or am I over thinking it.
Long bikes require a different technique....oooh, change, I dont like change
"much less propensity to throw me over the bars"
This sounds good (tho its pretty rare for me to OTB, but a bit of extra insurance always helps)
also wtf is going on with linebreaks/formatting?
I'm just back to the site after a long hiatus and Im having difficulty with the new settings. Are they a bit temperamental or am I just doing it wrong?
I think you’ll find you adapt really quickly to a longer slacker bike - and then when you try to a ride an older one it’ll seem really sketchy. It’s not a massive change, it’s not like you stop shifting your hips back as things get steeper, it just becomes a much more subtle movement.
If anything the weak point of very long bikes is on very twisty moderately fast stuff. But on slow steep stuff, having the front contact patch so far in front of your feet lets you really creep down the hill without tumbling over the bars.
At 6’2 a typical reach/stack choice is about 500/640mm. I’m 5’10.5 (long of limb, short of torso) and riding about 450/640 on my ebike (a bit longer would be better for I’ve had it five years) and about 470/640 on my hardtail (at sag) which feels a really nice fit.
Long low slack means different things to different people. Do you think it means low bb or low bars?
Low bb (and maybe seat/toptube too)
rode the "short" bike round Gwydir Mawr yesterday after only riding longer bikes the last cpl months*, bloody loved it 🙂
*been waiting to get my cranks fixed