Ok, so I know this question is a bit personal preference and entirely dependent on individual bikes, but I'm really struggling to make a decision so putting question out there in the vain hope I might get some pearls of wisdom.
I've narrowed bike choice down to two- [url= http://www.transitionbikes.com/2015/Bikes_Smuggler.cfm?Token={ts_2014-09-24_02:44:27}-2ac92ec8ead109f3-14875A80-BE93-5705-E54A41FDEE0893FA ]Transition Smuggler[/url] or T[url= http://www.trekbikes.com/uk/en/bikes/mountain/trail/remedy/remedy_9_8_29/ ]rek Remedy Carbon 29er[/url]. I've sort of demoed both bikes- The Transition was a size smaller than I'd take and the Remedy in the alu version, which is somewhat different sizing to the carbon which is longer and lower, but both were long enough demos to convince me both bikes are great. I'm happy the actual riding position on each of them is spot on for me, at 6'1" I'd be on a L for the Tranny and 21.5" for the Trek (they size up a wee bit smaller but reach, standover etc. for the Trek is perfect in the biggest size).
I'd be going for the Trek on the basis of I've had a 26" version for 6 years and really like it, it's the better pedaller of the two, it's a couple of Lb lighter due to the carbon frame and the longer travel gives me a bit more get out of jail.
BUT
The biggest size gives me a mahoosive wheelbase of 1212mm, which is a fair bit bigger than the 1188 of the Transition, and in fact a fair bit bigger than anything I've properly ridden in anger before. I've taken a bike of this length on a car park spin, it felt a bit unwieldy but it's not a fair test. I've sat on the Trek Remedy Carbon but getting a demo on that size is impossible, so it's a bit of a gamble. The Transition was a fun and chuckable bike (certainly for a 29er), while I don't want something too lively, I don't want to be riding a tank. My riding is a bit of a mix, I'd say about 60% of my riding is the relatively non-tech, big climbs and fast non tech descents, as that's the local stuff for evening rides. The rest is a mix of trail centre and natural, steep and tech. I race a few "Enduro's" a year too. For my weekday riding the big wheelbase will probably be no issue, but I'm concerned about when I get it onto the stuff I really enjoy- The steeper and twistier.
Am I right to be concerned at buying such a long bike? Would you be worried? Anyone other than Chris Porter got a bike of that size and loving it?
Am I right to be concerned at buying such a long bike? Would you be worried?
Chainstay length? This will be important to how the bike feels mid corner and how easy it will be to get the front wheel up. Shorter will feel more lively and have more cornering snap on the exit of turns, it'll also be easy to lift the nose. The downside will be you'll have to get further over the front so would require a slightly more agrressive descending technique. You'll also lose climbing grip.
Longer chainstays will give you more climbing grip, especially out of the saddle, but don't corner as well for me. If you like to hang off the back when descending, or you don't like to attack technical sections/jumps etc then longer chainstays migh suit you.
I wouldn't be worried at overall wheelbase on it's own, rather look at it in relation to the front and rear of the bike. The wheelbase you mention doesn't strike me as massively long for a modern bike in a bigger size.
Chainstay length?
Transition is 435mm, Trek 445mm. Trek has a longer front centre. For a 29er, both have pretty short stays.
long wheelbase didn't seem to slow richpips and minipips down on the pootle (they're on the right)
[img] 
[/img]
a mahoosive wheelbase of 1212mm, which is a fair bit bigger than the 1188 of the Transition
It's 24mm, less than an inch, and 10mm of that is in the chainstays. It's long but not massive, and I bet you'll be used to it within about 12.8 minutes of riding.
Am I right to be concerned at buying such a long bike?
Depends how sensitive you are to it I guess, but as above, I reckon you'll be just fine, you may even prefer it after a bit!
Would you be worried?
Not in the slightest, my regular XC ride has an 1160mm wheelbase, but I'm only 5'7 and tbh I wouldn't mind it being a smidge longer, at 6'1 you're always going to be on a bigger bike than me.
Anyone other than Chris Porter got a bike of that size and loving it?
plenty, whether or not they'll come on here to reassure you is another matter...
.DP
I just went from a Stumpy Evo to a 2014 Orange Alpine. Both 26er.
Chainstay length was 420 now 436 and wheelbase was 1160 and now 1201.
I am seeing zero negatives with these changes, feels a little more planted/stable in the faster bits but thats about it, the rest of the geometry is near enough the same so I can compare the two. I have no issues in the tight stuff. In fact i preferred it yesterday up BPW on certain runs.
I ride a tandem as my single. It's not ideal up steep slippery slopes or bumpy ground as the back wheel loses traction. But I wouldn't over-analyse a few mm 🙂
My Spitfire has an 1169mm wheelbase, about 60mm longer than my Soul. Chainstays 439 vs 425. I am equally bad at tight steep slippery switchbacks on both! In fact I'm probably a bit better on the longer bike because it gives me the confidence to attack them more.
the wheelbase on my mk1 horsethief is huge, in part thanks to the 460mm chainstays.
(and that Chris Porter thinks he's a trailblazer with his 450mm custom chainstays)
it's ace, i haven't found it a problem anywhere.
mostly, the bikes you're looking at are just a (little) bit different. Based on the numbers, one is not better or worse than the other.
it sounds like you'll be spending a lot money, get a proper test ride, on the right size.
Am I right to be concerned at buying such a long bike? Would you be worried? Anyone other than Chris Porter got a bike of that size and loving it?
I've got a massive bike too. As above, it's a horsethief but in XL, and long forks on. It puts supertankers to shame.
I love it.
However, I'm a big guy, maybe easier for me to move a big bike about? And whatever i'm on, if it fits me it's not getting round tight corners that quickly anyhow. Partly cos of my skill, but I'm sure for a given skill level small bikes do tight corners better.
However, on steep or fast stuff, and that includes steep tight corners, it's ace.
Funnily enough I'm also 6'1" and was also looking at a Trek Remedy Carbon 29 on my shortlist. Like you I was put off by the odd Trek sizing on the carbon frames and particularly the very long wheelbase for its class and rider height. In the end I went for a Spesh Enduro Carbon 29 in large - 1183 wheelbase, 430 chainstays. It feels pretty nimble on the trail, but it's definitely a big bike and I can't imagine running something longer.
I should add that I never actually rode the Trek, so it might be fine in practice, but I think the frame sizing is still odd for someone of our specific height. In theory a large should be fine for a 6'1" rider but all the reviews I've read say they size up small. I sat on a large Trek in the shop and the reach did feel short relative to the numbers quoted.
it sounds like you'll be spending a lot money, get a proper test ride, on the right size.
Pretty much impossible. Neither bike is available in my size for demo from local shops or distributors. On one hand it is frustrating, on the other hand I realise it's not practical for everyone to keep 1 of every model in every size for punters to try, especially smaller manufacturers and distributors. I've demoed close enough to each to know they are worthy of being on a shortlist, it's just this wheelbase niggle on the Trek.
Moshimonster- Agree with all of the above on Trek sizing. That said the carbon versions are infinitely better than the aluminium version which is ridiculously short and high. The differences seem pretty major. I actually think the fit comfort wise is really good for me, and I like everything about the geometry other than being slightly unsure of the wheelbase.
My Codeine with offset bushes has a 1220mm wb,if I could I'd swap 30mm of stem length for 30mm of extra tt length and have a 1250mm wb.
Not once have I though "the turning circle would be so much better if my bike was a bit shorter,I'd have so much more fun riding slowly".
Wheelbase is just a by product of having the right reach for your size,combined with a front centre defined by a decent head angle and some respectably short chainstays (cos I like manuals).
You don't design around a given wheelbase and cram everything else in (unless you are Ibis...who specify massive stems and steep head angles just to ensure in a short wb).
I'm looking at an XL Nukeproof Mega Am..with a -2 degree angleset I reckon the
wb will be 1300mm-ish 😀
I am 6'1" and I my current trail bike is 1.24m wheelbase. I love it, but wouldn't want to go any longer. I would not consider anything below 1.2m wheelbase now for a FS trail bike. It feels better for me in everything bar tight flat turns.
There is no one aspect of geometry that hugely influences the handling of any bike. What's the head angle? the fork offset? I recently replace my forks with a 13mm longer A-C length which increased the wheelbase, slackened the head angle, and increased the wheelbase, but with had a longer fork offset (46mm to 51mm) and the results were a significant and very noticable improvement in handling characteristics in at all speeds.
There is no one aspect of geometry that hugely influences the handling of any bike. What's the head angle? the fork offset?
67.5 degrees and 51mm respectively, on both bikes. The length of WB & CS is the primary difference in geometry between the two.
Moshimonster- Agree with all of the above on Trek sizing. That said the carbon versions are infinitely better than the aluminium version which is ridiculously short and high. The differences seem pretty major. I actually think the fit comfort wise is really good for me, and I like everything about the geometry other than being slightly unsure of the wheelbase.
The other thing that slightly put me off the Remedy 29 (carbon) geo was a relatively high BB (350) although it's about the same static height as my Enduro (which is longer travel, so runs effectively a bit lower with sag). Again personal preference, but I prefer a lower BB for my riding.
Think I might have gone with the Trek had the sizing been more in line with other manufacturers OR I could have got a test ride on the Carbon XL. Decided it was too much risk to buy the XL without a test. However I did go with the Enduro based on reviews, forum/shop advice, favourable geo numbers and a carpark test!
The other thing that slightly put me off the Remedy 29 (carbon) geo was a relatively high BB (350)
Supposedly (according to an owner on MTBR) the measured BB height of the carbon is lower than quoted, he measured his against his previous alu one, with the same wheels, from memory it was nearly a cm lower. But yes, on paper that did put me off, and it was a little high for my liking when I rode the aluminium one. That said, the Smuggler was just a little too low (330), I was smashing pedals all over the place, I'm sure i'd learn to live with it but I'm pretty sure it would annoy me still as there was several points on flatter tech stuff that I wanted to pedal but couldn't cause of lack of clearance.
If I couldn't ride the XL at all then like you I wouldn't risk it, but I have seen it in the flesh, sat on it to confirm it fits comfortably, I've just not been able to ride it in anger.
Still 10cm shorter rear centre than the benchmark SJ Evo 29". In your size I wouldn't want any less than 445mm.
The BB is a bit high IMO. But it'll be easier to lean over in slower speed turns so depending on where you ride you might prefer it.
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
Thanks for the useful input. I'm less concerned at the length after hearing others experience. Going to have another poke around the 2 bikes next weekend then make a decision.