[Closed] Long Vs Not-so-long for speed

Did they use more than one rider? Or did that rider just prefer shorter bikes

Not Enduro, but I switched a short gravel 29er for a long gravel 29er of near-identical weight

(wheelbase 1056 vs 1134)

And the long one feels positively ponderous, nowhere fast.

Would be interesting to know more. What sort of speed difference are they talking?

There's a lot going on here - strength, flexibility, riding style etc will all have a huge impact on what sort of bike works best for you. I agree that the longer/lower/slacker trend is because a longer bike is generally more suitable for most people. I'd guess people from bmx backgrounds will likely prefer short bikes with more snappy handling, but for a newer rider a longer, more stable bike is more predictable and more enjoyable. I don't think one size fits all as it were as so much comes down to riding style, body shape etc

As an aside - I don't know why we get so fixated on race bikes - they serve a different purpose entirely than what most of us. I like the developments in tech that they bring, because better suspension, brakes and tyres means I can push my own limits a bit more with greater margin for error, but my needs for a bike are vastly different from someone of that skill level. Jesee Melamed is my height and within a couple of kilos of weight (albeit he's all muscle and I'm beer belly) but I bet trying to ride his bike down Cwmcarn downhill would be bloody horrendous.

They tested 10 bikes, and found for a 180cm rider the fastest bikes were shorter.

So, a reach of around 460mm, and shorter bars around 760mm.

There are so many variables that statements like this are pretty much nonsense. What's fastest will depend on the particular trail. It will also depend on the body proportions of the rider - two 180 cm tall riders could have quite different length legs, torsos, necks, and arms. And it will depend on the rider's fitness, strength, and skills - some riders will be better at muscling a longer bike through tight stuff than other riders, for example. Plus it will depend on the particular bike - two bikes with identical reach might ride quite differently and suit different trails. Just too many variables to be able to reduce it to one single number.

As an aside – I don’t know why we get so fixated on race bikes – they serve a different purpose entirely than what most of us.

This is a good point. I read an interesting interview a few months back, but can't remember the name of the rider. Anyway, the gist of it was long, low, slack 29ers can be fast as hell and if you're a pro trying to win races then those few seconds really matter. However, they then went on to say that for nearly everyone else they may not be the right tool for the job, and it can take more effort to get the most out of them compared to a less race orientated bike, which aren't actually that much slower if at all in the 'real world'.

I was faster on my my 160/130mm bike than a hired 200/200mm dh bike on uplift trails.

Almost like I had got used to my bike, and 1 half day wasn't enough for smashing dh runs on a dh bike.

While that test is interesting, its hardly going to be definitive.

The grim donut is a good example, would be amazing in a very specific set of race conditions, but dogshit everywhere else.

I always think the bar width thing is funny where you end up with someone who is 5' 6" using 800+ bars. Wide bars are good but there has to be some variation for smaller people.

I always think the bar width thing is funny where you end up with someone who is 5′ 6″ using 800+ bars. Wide bars are good but there has to be some variation for smaller people

Or they could make them a generic size and let people cut them down - 30 seconds with a hacksaw is all it takes, most bars even have markings to make it easier.

The grim donut is a good example, would be amazing in a very specific set of race conditions, but dogshit everywhere else.

I've been waiting for absolutely ages for the follow up video to be released. Thanks for reminding me. Just seen that they put it out last week so going to make a cup of tea and watch it now.

Just read the article.
Come comments:
- first, there seems to be sort of a urban myth around some circles that pro enduro racers always size down on bikes. But, if one spends some time searching, it's clear that they're all over the place. For each Richie Rude and Jack Moir there's a couple of upper 170cm guys on L frames
- my understanding is that they performed the testing on a single track. Different tracks may be better suited for different sized/geometry bikes
- one can quickly point that they complain about long bikes but mostly on models with very short chainstays. A more precise acessment would be that unbalanced front and rear centers are problematic.
- I understand that this was a "race" format test. But we mortals also tend to climb a lot. I personally prefer a longer bike for climbs, specially rough/technical ones
- they emphasize that the testers were 180cm tall on average. But what about armspans? IMHO that's as important as height for bike sizing

I'm 5ft 9in and ride 720 bars and ride a small 😁

It got me thinking, are shorter and narrower bikes faster for better riders? And longer and wider faster for less good riders – as they’re more stable and confidence inspiring?

didnt a big hitter say this recently? can’t remember who. basically longer bikes are better for less good riders wanting togo fast. they are also worse for less good riders who want to have poppy fun times (i know this from personal experience).

however, have you watched the latest grim donut video?

didnt a big hitter say this recently?

I think he's said it recently, yes... And not quite so recently, and a little less recently, and a little less recently than that too! In fact, there's almost certainly a LOT of instances of him saying it! 😉

Just reading the latest copy of Enduro Mag, and there’s a really interesting article on what the fastest enduro bike is.

You need to remember that Enduro Mag once stated that the Rockshox Reverb was the most trouble free of all dropper posts that they had ever used, and in 23 examples, they hadn't experienced a single fault with one of them!

This led me to conclude that they can't have ridden a single one of them! 🤷🏻‍♂️

It got me thinking, are shorter and narrower bikes faster for better riders? And longer and wider faster for less good riders – as they’re more stable and confidence inspiring?

A good rider is a good rider, and will ride around the limitations of the bike. I had a long conversation with Chris Porter and his associates recently about the whole longer/lower/slacker thing and his point that the rider still makes by far and away the biggest difference and a good rider will still be good even on a "bad" bike (take that how you will), but the rest of us can and will often use whatever tools we have available to us to improve our performance. FWIW, I expected for the G1 Geometron to feel huge even in a medium. As it was, the medium felt too small for me to ride so I rode a Large instead and felt immediately comfortable on it! Yes it required a slightly different riding style than a more conventional bike, a bit more weight shift fore/aft like on an Enduro Motorbike, but otherwise it felt conspicuously just like a bike... One with incredibly efficient suspension and huge amounts of grip!

– one can quickly point that they complain about long bikes but mostly on models with very short chainstays. A more precise acessment would be that unbalanced front and rear centers are problematic.

I'm inclined to think that this is the real issue too... We've had the short chainstay wars a few years ago, and thankfully come away from it. But similarly, none of us are Gee Atherton specifically requesting our sponsor to make longer and longer swingarms for testing purposes having found that chainstay lengths approaching 500mm to be faster on a given DH track than shorter ones. Balance is the key, and it probably goes some way to explaining how I felt immediately happy riding a Geometron G1 coming from a much shorter (but equally well balanced) Evil, having ridden other bikes with front ends almost as long as the Geometron's but back ends much closer in length to that on my Evil, thus creating a feeling of imbalance.

Levy’s comment about feeling centred between the wheels in the Donut certainly made sense to me.

i personally don't really mind about being able to blat over everything at max speed, and would rather have a short bike that I can pop off stuff and have fun. The tradeoff for all that stability is less ability to move a bike around, and for me thats a compromise I'd rather not make. Its interesting that this article suggests that long isn't even fast, but I guess with most DH bikes not *all that* long, (for example, the longest demo has a reach 45mm shorter than the longest enduro) it shouldn't be that surprising

just to be clear, by big hitter i mean a fast and accomplished rider and not someone who posts a lot on the internet

@5lab , the thing with DH bikes is that they tend to have huge front centres due to the fork length and slack head angle. Like you state, you'll see DH bikes with shorter reach than their enduro counterpart, but with a long front centre and 50mm stem.

Reach by itself is not an amazing metric. Bike A can have a shorter reach than bike B, but A, with a slacker HA and longer fork, together with a longer stem can feel just as long

Whilst I agree you can't directly compare things, the front centre is 38mm longer on the endure (same head angle, fork length is fairly similar, plus that reach).

I guess my point is that dh bikes, with all the compromise in the world just to go fast on fast stuff, are probably marginally more conservative in geo than enduro bikes are. They certainly have less bb drop and similar head angles

https://geometrygeeks.bike/compare/specialized-demo-29-2020-s4,specialized-enduro-2020-s5/

They have less BB drop because of the huge suspension travel. After suspension sag things are not that different in that regard.

A good rider is a good rider whatever the bike. The pro riders and I dare say some people on here, were riding those awful, short/high/steep old fashioned bikes of 10/15 years ago over gnarly stuff at speeds that I can't even come close to today on my bang up to date LLS machine.

I’ve moved to slightly narrower bars 760 v 800. It’s made the bike faster as it’s easier to turn and lean further over before I run out of arm length

The fastest bike on a timed run is not always the most enjoyable. If racing and winning were the most important (i.e. it was my job) then I would pick the fastest bike. As it isn't I pick the bikes I enjoy riding the most.

It is interesting to compare the variances, even if i'm not sure Enduro Mag is the best platform for reviews or opinions, they do tend to have some slightly out there thought trains - but the concept is thought provoking.

However, the fact is, most of the sharp end of the field, are riding bikes that are considered on the smaller side these days. I'm also sure, given their position, they have tested numerous variances with bigger bikes & different geometries.

I, and others I ride & race with have tried the really big bike thing, and none of us have stuck with it. Relatively I still ride a fairly big bike, but them i'm 188cm tall, but it's certainly not Geometron sized. Having tried one, and other similar sized bikes I can absolutely say overall, i'm not as fast, nor is it as fun.

There are certain places, and scenarios it worked well, but that probably equated to 5% of my riding. The only person who I know who still runs one now has just sized down to a 'longer' which is technically too small for him (although still massive) & he's gone faster on it. CP nearly popped a valve.

It's good we live in a world of choice & bikes are absolutely going in the right direction now - without pushing the boundaries, we wouldn't be where we are. I looked back and only 8 years ago I raced enduro on a large bike, which had a 405mm reach, 71.5 degree STA, 67 degree HTA & a wheelbase of 1147mm. No wonder it was sketchy as hell 🙂

Also, it's worth to specify what's really considered to be "long" these days.

If we mean "long" as boundary pushing like on a L, 515mm reach Geometron or Pole, then I'd agree that's a little too much. I've tried that, and even being 184cm tall with a 195cm wingspan I felt uncomfortable and slow to react to the terrain.

But if we mean "long" as in the 480-490mm reach so many Ls are now, then that's a different story.

So I guess it's worth to be specific

The article is a pretty good stab at it. I think the main take away for me is that the bike needs to be balanced, and the balance is probably more important than the reach. Then you pick a wheelbase that suits the riding you do. I'm scared going fast and got that scrawny office worker build so think my 129cm wheelbase works for my 178cm height. I've always been okay at fiddly tight corners so am happy that compromise keeps me in touch with my friends, and what else matters!

"They tested 10 bikes, and found for a 180cm rider the fastest bikes were shorter.

So, a reach of around 460mm, and shorter bars around 760mm."

I'm 179cm tall and both bikes are 455mm reach and 770mm bars. Should have asked me! 😉

(And I'd also add that my bike with the long chainstays is much better for riding flat-out on the ragged edge than the one with the short chainstays - which itself is more fun when going slower).

I still ride a short santa Cruz heckler and love it.it feels like a big bmx.i came to mtb having rode bmx tracks alot when I was younger. Still feels stable enough downhill and I love the way it changes direction so quickly.no doubt modern geometry would be better but I am not sure if I would enjoy it more.for me it's all about fun not strava segments though.

I think the steepness of your terrain will effect your experience of long/short bikes more than anything else. Also... different people mean different things by "fast"... Fast from A>B? Fast feeling? Fast handling? Fast for an hour? Fast all day? Fast downhill? Fast at climbing? Fast over rough terrain? Fast on groomed trails?

They liked a large mega, I wouldn't call that super short. Also different tyres, different suspension etc means you have to be careful reading too much into it. I think the short thing was a bit clickbait but it works.

This test defined fast as how quick can a racer go on one two minute section of an ews stage. As above that's probably a different requirement to how fast a bunch of solicitors/engineers can go in the local woods on a Wednesday evening while shouting gnarly at each other.

Ps thats the best bit of my week, I'm not trying to say its bad.

Damn, you're making me not want a Geometron!

Conversely, Yoann Barelli, an actual EWS pro on his usual testing track went quicker on the Grim Donut than his Commencal race bike:

1409mm wheelbase.

And not a little quicker, a LOT quicker.

That Enduro MTB article is amusing, once again no data published (that I could see) to support their claims and far too many variables.

Here is a good example:

It got me thinking, are shorter and narrower bikes faster for better riders?

Better riders are going to be fitter and ride their bike a lot more, so twitchy, fast handling bikes are maybe what they want.
There were a few videos with Jared Graves and Curtis Keene trying different sizes, against the clock with parts being swapped over to reduce the number of variables. Jared commenting that bikes are getting too long for him, but he's been racing a long time and old habits are hard to shift.

We are only just seeing the likes of Motion Instruments offering devices which can aid the setup of our bikes, as upto now we are at the mercy of our feedback and the knowledge/experience of the suspension tuning centres.

How many people actually spend enough time getting their bike setup so it at least has half a chance to perform correctly and then know what to adjust as conditions change?
People are quick to go out and buy the next shiny thing, say an SB150, but don't see the value in investing in a setup day to get a good baseline, whether that be with a suspension company or just on their own.

Damn, you’re making me not want a Geometron!

Buying a Geometron is very different to a normal bike, go for a test ride, its well worth it. Taking the time to setup a bike and a proper test ride as a result, rather than the normal chucking you a bike and letting you be disappointed (been there with a 7k megatower!).

If you compare the latest enduro to the Geometrons, they arn't a million miles away. The Stumpy evo was a bit of a dogs dinner IMO, tiny headtube resulted in lots of spacers which shrunk the reach giving a cramped feeling. It might of worked for me if there was an S4 and it didn't pedal so badly.

I bought a Geometron a few weeks ago, the places I ride can justify it, had another bike which wasn't far off the same geometry as the G1, so I'd lived with the long bike for a while and it was good for me, also happened to be faster round the local xc loop than my trail bike (Reactor 290), that got sold!

Am I faster on the G1? Quicker than my old enduro and the 161, its also more fun to ride with the hybrid wheel setup. The G1 is also well made and after having multiple issues over the past few years, I can't be bothered with the shit bike companies are pumping out and expecting us to put up with it.

Shame in this covid times it's difficult to demo any bikes, I believe now you can only test a Geometron in their HQ, it's far from London but might give it a go.

I honestly think this debate to be a little pointless as it misses the core: more than X Vs y is faster, I think it's a matter of preference. The pro DH and enduro field shows that. You'll see plenty of 6' guys on Ms but also a lot of 5'9/10 guys on Ls or even XLs.

Some minutes watching Vital Raw footage will quickly tell you why. Despite being overwhelmingly fast, pros style vary wildly. Some guys are almost static on the bike, others are almost acrobatic on top of it, long limbs short limbs, some crash into stuff others almost can't be heard.

We have a tendency to be tribal and draw conclusions from our bias, like "see, all the pros size down!!" or the opposite. But we should really see this industry tendency as an opportunity to pick your preferred geometry, rather than an implication that longer bikes have to be faster.

I'll speak for myself. 184cm tall, over the last 2,5 years had several different bikes ranging from 475 to 510mm reach. The longer one was comfortable but made me feel like a passenger and nervous over rough terrain as I had to really exaggerate my body English to make it move. The 475 one felt cramped both up and down, was uncomfortable, made my lower back ache and was fast but demanded concentration. My sweet spot seems to be my current one with 490mm

The 161 rides well for what it is, nothing fancy but great for stages and long days out. I found its geo (p3) to be great for smoothing even the roughest tracks. It is a specific tool. No frills. As a daily bike I still prefer my large Capra 170mm CF as I find it really light and fun. Im 6ft and its compact but I just seem to ride the best on it. For some reason I prefer 27.5 in really steep terrain.

I am testing the following geo 29er Steel FS I had made for UK riding. Based in the tweed Valley. Nothing too crazy here but a good mix of trails. At the larger end for me in feel but smooth as hell it is while still being really lively. Really feel on the center on this bike. More so than the long moxie FS. Climbs better and faster down for sure. 160F/140R

[img] [/img]

It got me thinking, are shorter and narrower bikes faster

That's like asking if an F1 car is quicker than a drag racer.

We have a tendency to be tribal and draw conclusions from our bias, like “see, all the pros size down!!” or the opposite. But we should really see this industry tendency as an opportunity to pick your preferred geometry, rather than an implication that longer bikes have to be faster.

Don't you come round here being all reasonable and understanding!

I’m 183m and have a riot of time on a 390mm reach hardtail.

That’s all I profess to know and love 🤠YEEEEHA!

Keeping it simple, shorter bikes will be quicker on tight twisty trails and long bikes will be quicker on more open fast trails. Just my opinion though. I think they said something like that in the article.