Last two 160mm bikes have felt cramped in a size medium (I am 5’8)- especially so when I fit my 50mm stem. I was wondering if any other vertically challenged riders have been tempted by a larger than recommended frame?

keep banging on about it but went for a kona process 153

TT is designed to be longer and based around a shorter- 35mm stem

Im same height as you and went for a medium really is a great fit, reach is longer than a lot of large bikes but works so well with short chainstays, also check out the knolly warden, banshee spitfire?

heres a list someone compiled on MTBR

Tallboy LT SPXAM29 17.2″ (XL) / 16.3 (L)
Yeti SB-95 Enduro 17.33″ (XL)
Transition Covert 2 29 (XL) 17.1
Banshee Prime Comp 17.32 (L) /18.70 (XL)
Enduro 29 (XL) 18.2
Norco Range Killer B-2 17.13
Norco Sight Killer B (L) 17.52
Rocky Mountain Altitude 17.6 – 18.3
Santa Cruz Bronson XL 17.60
Canfield Balance L 17.25
Canfield Balance XL 18.00
Knolly Warden L 18.11
Knolly Warden XL 18.66
Kona Process 153 (L) 18.11
Kona Process 153 (XL) 19.09
Pivot Mach 6 (L) 16.30
Pivot Mach 6 (XL) 16.74
Canfield The One L 17.28
Canfield The One XL 17.99

I changed my Medium Spesh enduro up for a large with a much shorter stem. I reckon as short a stem as you can find, and a longer top-tube gives me much better handling. Especially for a gravity oriented bike.

With the new Hope 35mm shorty, i’ll be going even shorter in the TT soon.

I’d like to go up to a large on mine, still got my eyes open for a used frame or front end… But I think newer bikes often have the longer TT I’m after already so it’s probably mostly my slightly old frame causing that.

Mondrakers Forward Geometry gives long TT/super short stem for any given size…

Mondrakers Forward Geometry gives long TT/super short stem for any given size…

Yes – and its a good idea
Only problem is the out going frame is a 2012 Dune that Im sick to the back teeth with. Try’s to disassemble itself every time we go over a few bumps.

Also it looks ****ing awful.

(incidentally, see these forward geometry fuglystems? Is there any reason you couldn’t achieve the same with a normal stem and a more laid-back bar? I figure what really counts is where the hands are relative to the steerer not how they get there so presumably you could get the same benefits without the monstrousness)

I’d rather ride a bike that doesn’t fit than a Mondraker

Also it looks ****ing awful.

Yeah they do don’t they 🙂

The but the pre-forward geometry ones look lovely
Unfortunately is seems they were built purely for looks without use of a tape measure.

On mine…..
the rear end hits the seat tube on big bottom outs.
the sides of the air can rub on the inside of the frame.
the 135mm dropouts are more like 145mm.
The rear end flexes and creaks like a horse drawn cart.

That said the VPP suspension is very good.

Look out for this frame in the classifieds very soon – don’t all shout at once 🙂

I’ve been through this being 5’9″ and wanting a dropper post with 150mm or more drop. It’s incredibly frustrating! I ended up with a M Spitfire which allowed me to use a 155mm dropper from Yep Components with a 45mm stem.
I’ve played about with band-aid tactics on smaller-than-ideal frames and it doesn’t work 100%, there’s always a trade-off. With angle sets I ended up with a sluggish bike that wouldn’t exit flat corners but it was good on the steep. The Spitfire has a longer reach with longer chainstays but it feels more agile and at the same time has better stability. It’s more fun too!

(incidentally, see these forward geometry fuglystems? Is there any reason you couldn’t achieve the same with a normal stem and a more laid-back bar? I figure what really counts is where the hands are relative to the steerer not how they get there so presumably you could get the same benefits without the monstrousness)

You wouldn’t get the marketing ‘zero stem’ hoo-hah but you’d get a lower front end and a better looking solution. A Jeff Jones bar has a ton of backsweep for instance. I think it’s more expensive to tool up a new bar than a new stem too.

I sort of played with this idea with a sh large spicy which turned out to be too big for me – reach was good but bike always felt too tall.

Ended up with an (also sh) medium Zesty which fits me like a glove.

I liked the Spicy lots, but it was never as poised as the Zesty for me which made it a bit of a waste! I like a long reach but don’t like the top tube too high it seems.

150mm Reverb at full height with collar on the tube joint is perfect for high position for me.

Curious about the dropper point though.,, for me, I just let it return to where I’m sitting so don’t see why having extra unused travel would be bad unless you bought a more expensive post than needed?

I ride the bike that fits really, when sizing up I consider the fact I want to run a short stem and wider bars than some. The sticker on the frame is merely a guide.

Top tube length measurements aren’t much use on AM bikes.

Latest bike, decided to give a bike a go with a much bigger reach to see what it was like.

So far has been better in every way, that even includes tom foolery and jumping,it’s more bike to move around but my body is in a better position to do it.

I’m a bit taller than you but have always ridden medium sized bikes however when it came to replacing my SX Trail I went for a large Rune (I’m normally just in the cross over from medium to large) and am much happier in a longer bike.

Going up a size may be better with the trend of steeper seat tubes.

m a bit taller than you but have always ridden medium sized bikes however when it came to replacing my SX Trail I went for a large Rune (I’m normally just in the cross over from medium to large) and am much happier in a longer bike.

This always confuses me, I have a usual shoe size and shirt size and trouser size. But bikes are made against non standard sizes small in one is medium against another etc. Height is a great size guide for roadies but with low TT’s and different stylings/ideas arm length is as much of a guide with inside leg being useful. Looking at seat tube angles changing the effective TT can vary a huge amount depending on where your arms start.

a lot of bikes list reach now, which is probably much more useful

Yeah, ETT is very hard to get any useful information from unless all the other angles and sizes are pretty similiar.

I reckon wheel base is a good measure these days – since most enduro bikes have a similar head angle and fork length.
Thats as long as your not into any of this big wheel nonsense

This always confuses me, I have a usual shoe size and shirt size and trouser size. But bikes are made against non standard sizes small in one is medium against another etc. Height is a great size guide for roadies but with low TT’s and different stylings/ideas arm length is as much of a guide with inside leg being useful. Looking at seat tube angles changing the effective TT can vary a huge amount depending on where your arms start.

I know. Transition’s height guide puts me in a medium but when I tried it, it was way too short. I was way too upright and cramped with the saddle at a pedalling height. I’ve generally ignored what the manufacturer says and gone with what was comfortable (the large Enduro that I rode many moons ago felt way too big and like a barge hence me going for a medium SX).

I think the trend for steeper seat angles has a lot to do with it. My SX had a pretty slack seat angle so it felt quite roomy with the saddle up but there was too much weight over the back so it wandered all over the place on climbs.

I went with a medium Spitfire because I was aware that the wheelbase was already going to be a lot longer than on my Soul due to the longer front-centre and chainstays, I like the middling-length ETT on the Soul and they both have about the same ETT. Standing up the Spitfire feels a LOT longer – seat angle is about 3 deg steeper so the reach is almost 40mm greater for the same ETT

Feels better for descending because I can stay more balanced in the centre of the bike and feels better for climbing because the rear axle so much further back behind the saddle. And better for cornering on the limit because the whole bike is more stable – the only downsides are hustling it through tight corners with it being so long and the physicality required to get it to whip about quickly – but that is compared to a lighter, shorter, steeper, smaller-wheeled hardtail!

Reach is definitely the sizing number that matters most on any frame that’s more about going downhill than pedalling uphill/along.

There’s quite a lot of variance in ‘enduro’ head angles btw – everything from 65-67 deg is common, which changes the wheelbase by about 20mm if the reach and chainstay length are constant.

mindmap3 – Member

Transition’s height guide puts me in a medium but when I tried it, it was way too short. I was way too upright and cramped with the saddle at a pedalling height.

Transition sizing is weird, the large Covert 29 is pretty much exactly in line with everyone else’s mediums, so I emailed them and Lars said “Oh yeah, ignore the size guide, medium would be far too small, you need a large”. So, why not make your medium that big then? I’m 5 10 and normally proportioned, if I’m not a medium then who is?