Alpine 160 v. Mega v. Pitch sizing

Home Forum Bike Forum Alpine 160 v. Mega v. Pitch sizing

Viewing 16 posts - 1 through 16 (of 16 total)
  • Alpine 160 v. Mega v. Pitch sizing
  • rj

    Whilst I’m painfully aware of the potential consequences of buying without trying after the whole Orange G2 debacle, it is looking increasingly likely that I will nonetheless find myself in this position once again. Whilst I’m fond of my hardtail, I can no longer kid myself that there is the remotest chance of keeping up with my riding companions without a sizeable amount of skills compensation. Therefore, I am putting myself at the mercy of the collective STW wisdom in the hope that I can establish some sort of averaged opinion to guide my choice.
    The situation is as follows: I have demoed a 16″ Alpine 160 which I enjoyed immensely and the sizing of which I found agreeable. Alas, I can’t afford one and under a matrimonial agreement the details of which I shan’t bore you with I wouldn’t be allowed to buy one even if I could. There is an outside chance that my adoring wife might be persuaded to gift me a Nukeproof Mega for my upcoming 40th, but I have thus far been singularly unsuccessful in procuring a ride, sit on or even a furtive glance of one. The available data suggests the a medium Mega is very close in size to a small 160 with the Mega being a little shorter in the top tube and longer in the chainstay. I would be enormously grateful if anyone who has ridden both could either confirm or disabuse me of this conclusion.
    In all probability, I will find myself Mega-less on my birthday in which case I may be able to stretch to a used Pitch frame that I would run over the summer months. Again if anyone with relevant experience could furnish me with a comparison between the Alpine and a small and medium Pitch (which seem to sit either side in terms of TT length), my gratitude would be marginal greater than if you had done nothing at all.
    For reference, I am 5’7″ and currently ride a 17.5″ Handjob.
    Many thanks in advance.

    Hi mate,
    got a friend who will be selling his med pitch pro with CCDB shock as soon as his Yeti sb66 is built up.It is well used,but well loved ,think it also comes with a King headset?

    Can ask him what he wants for it if your interested?
    Also i’ve owned both a pitch and an alpine which are both brilliant bikes,but for the money you cant go wrong with the pitch.

    Cheers John.


    Pitch’s are awesome.

    What would you say is most important, in the saddle room or out of the saddle handling? Plus out of the saddle handling, do you want agility or sit back and plough over everything?

    A small pitch may have an eff tt of 565mm, so not the largest whilst seated, but get out of the seat, it has a reach of 430mm. This compares to the mega in large with a reach of 435mm, orange don’t specify the reach on the alpine. Just to show how long the pitch is standing, the small pitch has the same reach as a medium enduro.

    At 5ft7 and riding a 17.5 handjob, it sounds like you like room whilst seated.

    Im 5ft11, was riding a small pitch (mine is for sale), with 50mm stem, whilst the ride position was not ideal in the saddle, out of the saddle (this is MTBing after all) it had loads of space. Tried friends mediums too, bang on in the saddle, tt too long and putting too much weight forward out of the saddle. Though of course preference comes into it.

    If you went with a small pitch, i rekon it should be just about comfy enough seated (though it’s down to your preferences), especially with a 60-70mm stem, however medium would definitely have enough room seated, but may be too much bike to man handle effectively out of the saddle.

    I wouldn’t go for a larger than a 16″ alpine at your height, the mega has a small eff tt for a given sized really, but slack HA and long CS makes it a lot of bike, you would have to weigh up the in the saddle vs handling again for the mega.


    Thanks Deanfbm, that rather neatly resolves my confusion over the Pitch. I’ve heard various accounts ranging from a small Pitch is similar to a medium anything else to a small is only good if you’re less than 5’3″. It sounds like small is the way to go. The Handjob was bought after I convinced myself that I would mostly be doing long, natural rides. I very rapidly became bored with this and now the saddle is shoved all the way forward and it is sporting a set of Lyriks. I suspect the seated length would be adequate if I ran the saddle further back than I do at the moment.
    Looks like I’ll need to give the Mega sizing some further consideration, as my initial analysis may have been a bit simplistic.

    I’ve a Medium Pitch I’m selling, if you’re in the Swinley area you’re welcome to try-before-you-buy for sizing.


    I ride an 18″ alpine and used to have a medium pitch, I’m 5’11”.


    Thanks for the offer, but I’m in Glasgow so a bit of a hike. I’d be after a frame only and I’d swap the bits from the Handjob. I also need to wait six weeks until after my birthday just in case. It does sound very much like a small Pitch would be my best bet. The small Mega looks to be extremely short in the top tube and the medium appears to sit between a small and medium Alpine, rather inconveniently.

    Just to add confusion, when you look at the sizing, also check the seat tube angle.

    To expand on what dean says about the difference between sitting and standing, a steeper seat tube effectively pushes the top tube/headset forwards (about 10mm per degree) from the BB.

    This means if you take 2 bikes with identical top tube length but one with a steeper seat tube, the one with the steeper seat tube will have a longer reach (bb to headtbue). This makes the bike longer when stood up.

    The Mega has a 75 degree seat tube – so reach would be roughly 30mm or so more than a same sized top tube bike with a 72 degree seat angle.

    6’1″ here and ride a medium pitch which fits well.


    Had a 2008 Pitch Pro – destroyed it far too easily (loads replaced under warranty). Hope they’ve beefed them up a bit.

    I’d take the Alpine 160 any day over it.


    I’d take the Alpine 160 any day over it.

    As would I were it not for budgetary constraints.

    Gravity-slave, from your description it sounds like a small Mega is very short when seated and a medium would feel overly long when standing (at least for someone of my diminutive stature). It’s sufficiently different from pretty much everything else I’ve tried to make buying blind look like an excessively risky proposition.



    Got a medium 2011 Pitch and I’m 5’7 it’s the correct size for me, the actual bike is mega for the money but it’s not an alpine 160 competitor. If your just doing a bit of everything but want something that puts a grin on your face down hills then it’s a good choice. The limiting thing I have found on the bike are the forks but thats only to expected at the price.

    A 160 is my next weapon and I’ve also got an Ayatollah who can’t see the merits of a better push iron. 😆


    Both the pitch and the mega come up really small. At 5’7 you’d want a medium on both. Just a word of caution, the mega is a very different bike to the Alpine. The nukeproof is a great bike, loads of the lads I ride with are on em, (well 4 anyway) and one actuall did the megavalanche on his but it is far from a plush ride. The rockshox shock makes it very firm compared to both the alpine and the pitch. Great if you hit things hard and skip over rough sections at speed, but if it’s a comfy bump swallower you’re after then the pitch is a better bet.


    5’11, have a mega demo’d an 18 alpine, mega felt (and rides…but that’s not your question) better, more agile yet more ‘breathing space’, if that makes sense. In Matlock if you want a spin…..

    The rockshox shock makes it very firm compared to both the alpine and the pitch. Great if you hit things hard and skip over rough sections at speed, but if it’s a comfy bump swallower you’re after then the pitch is a better bet.

    I came the same conclusion slightly differently, On my Pitch I always rode with my arse/weight over the rear tyre and let the front do whatever it liked, on a Mega I demo’d it was the opposite, more like riding a hardtail with all the weight on the front.

    I’d try and get a demo as they rode compeltely differently, and a friend bought a 5 after Demoing my pitch and a 5 and the orange rode differenly again (he looks a lot more ballanced on it than I do on the Pitch anyway).

    Premier Icon beb

    totally agree with deanfbm.

    5’9″ and owned a small pitch (fantastic bike) and now on a medium mega. I was torn between small and medium megas and went for the med as its reach is v similar to the small pitch i came off. Both bikes run with 50mm stems and 740/750 mm bars.

    Fairly sure the med mega was right but a small part of me is tempted by a small one, as the mega is a long bike, wheelbase wise – v stable but not the most nimble. At 5’7″ personally I’d lean towards a small mega.

    They (Mega’s) are firmly damped, as mentioned above. Great above a certain speed but not super plush at low speeds.

Viewing 16 posts - 1 through 16 (of 16 total)

The topic ‘Alpine 160 v. Mega v. Pitch sizing’ is closed to new replies.