The YouTube algorithm found this channel for me a few weeks ago, and they’ve made a couple of videos recently claiming that the reach on many bike makes them too big.
Joy of Bike

What’s the STW hive mind thought on this? Personally I recently got a Sonder Cortex, and find it easier to handle than my Whyte 901 which has ~20mm more reach, even though the big wheels make the Sonder longer and taller. I can see however that the longer reach helps with stability in the rough stuff.

Yes, but no. It all depends on how (and what) you like to ride.

I saw the same video and found it really interesting. I’m no expert but have fad similar thoughts.

I’m not sure my needs match theirs as I’m not a dirt jumping ex-bmxer but, I’m also (despite my best daydreams) I’m not a super radgnar enduro racer. As much as I love the down hills, the vast majority of my time is either up, or along. So much more of my time on a mountain bike is sat down and pedalling compared to what the current fashions would have you think.

The modern long bikes are designed for maximum fun going really rather fast downhill, if you don’t do a lot of that maybe they are less than ideal.

I rode a friend’s old steep head angled shorter full suss the other day down garburn pass. It climbed brilliantly but tbh it was a bit scary going down steep techy stuff and I was slow. You pays your money etc

I think I saw this video on it first.

No, it’s all about the right tool for the job. Being 6’5″ I feel like bikes are only just being made in a size that really fit me. When I look at pictures of me riding a bike from a few years ago I look like I’m riding a children’s bike.

That said, I have a 4x bike for messing around on that must have a reach of low 400’s, it feels great fun but very twitchy. My hardtail is 510 reach and my full sus is 528mm. They all arguably fit me but vary in size massively and ride very differently.

But when it comes to fitting bikes in my car/shed/garage/workshop, yes they’re too long!

I’m 5ft 9in and Morden reach means I can ride a small and have 180 dropper. Winner

yes they are too long for reach. some small bikes have a reach that is too long for me.

Not all bikes no. The option of longer reaches is welcome for many, and shorter are still offered for those that like more moderate reach figures. Don’t really see a problem.

I think the discussion isn’t one of “should they stop making long bikes” but more a case of selecting bikes by considered/informed choice rather than following fashion.

It depends who you are and what you want. MTB’s were shaped like 1980’s road bikes for 20 years which is absurd and larger sizes were well overdue.

I’m 6’2″ and my current bike is the first I’ve ever had that feels like it really fits. I’ve never ridden anything that climbs or descends so well and it’s a comfortable place to sit all day. So yes it’s probably too long for most people but for me it’s a godsend.

I did however grow up riding BMX, hitting ramps and jumps and I find this kind of riding much harder on a big bike. For most people in most scenarios it’s a non-issue. The combination of raked out front end and long chainstays makes it an absolute pig for lifting the front wheel and popping trannys.

I want hardtail or shorter trail bike for fun rides full of jumps and wheelies before I get so old I completely forget how to do it.

(current reach is 520mm, wheelbase is 1328, head angle 62)

As much as I love the down hills, the vast majority of my time is either up, or along. So much more of my time on a mountain bike is sat down and pedalling compared to what the current fashions would have you think.

Yep, that is where I spend most of my time. I am on the seat almost all the time other than some standed climbing and some trickier bits. That is the terrain where I live so I therefore have the bike that suits it which is a short bike with 68 HTA.

There’s a couple of taller guys commenting here that are saying bigger bikes are better. I’d be interested to know what “bigger” actually means. Are they better because they’re bigger than bikes of old or because they’re RAD++?

I’m tempted to set up a couple of steps in the garage and test my RAD.

Depends on your body dimensions. Having long legs and torso but normal length arms is a problem for reach. I’ve rarely had a bike that fits me, and have had to resort on one bike to fit a bmx Stem and single wall supercross bars to get the stack height I needed.

What do you mean by longer and to what effect, my current bike, which is a transition patrol in medium has a reach of 450mm, and a top tube length of 583mm, my 2003 full susser had a top tube length of 580, so not exactly hugely different in terms of the length from me in the saddle to the handlebars, my stem is 35mm long now, back then it would probably have been 90mm!

Folk get carried away with longer, reach for me is a dimension that gives me info on how i will be positioned when the saddle is down and i’m out of it, going uphill, reach means nothing, as i am not in the attack position, i actually find my patrol feels shorter than my ebike, which has a 430mm reach, again this is down to so many other aspects being in place, wheelbase has of course got longer, but we’re no longer running 26ers, so not dramatically in terms of keeping the same geo with larger diameter wheels.

Has anyone commenting here checked their RAD yet? I shall check later and report back.

Maybe-ish? (I’m 6ft)

I demoed a bike with a 500mm reach and whilst it was brilliantly bonkers at just rolling down bumpy stuff without thought, it wasn’t something I’d want to actually ride. You just had no direct control over it. Lifting the front wheel was only really possible if you preloaded it then tried HARD to manual. You couldnt just unweight it.

But then 10 years ago 475mm was impossible to find outside of XL frames and 450mm is way too short. So for me my ideal seems to be at the long end of mainstream but not in the realms of Bird/Geometron or the other out-there geometries.

I think the range of sizes used to be too narrow and too skewed towards shorter riders (ignoring excessively long seat tubes). And now it’s skewed towards taller riders.

I’m about 5’11” with long limbs (6’2” armspan) and very happy at 455mm reach on both bikes. I think the wheelbases are 1230mm on the Levo and 1185mm on my hardtail.

I think modern bike sizing is good for racing or tall riders. Not so good for shorter riders or anyone preferring to mess about rather than go flat out. Ans it’s no good saying “just ride an older bike” because the trend in head angles, seat angles etc is good!

If you’re 5’7” or under, especially with a shorter torso and/or arms, and wanting fun rather than fast, I’m not sure what you’re meant to buy?

I quite like the newer but not too extreme geometry. I’m 5ft 9” yet have short legs at 29” and arms like a gibbon. So longer reach and shorter seat tube is great. Historically I’ve ridden hardtails the most and think something with around a 66dg HA and a 130mm fork is the sweet spot for me.

It’s interesting alright, by his rough figures I should be on a 470mm bike. Now that’s a lot, lot smaller than I’m on (yes I might have gone too long..). So I’m 189 cm 6’2 in old money, I don’t Chuck the bike about like these guys do they’re much more poppy jumpy hoppy…I’m more trundle, survive, jump if really necessary!! So the smaller bikes might be more suitable for them. I think if I’m not sure comparing me to Richie Rude would be overly helpful…in the same way comparing my bike fit to Tom Boonen’s would be?

Ok….did the marker on the wall thing…got 89.5cm….I’m an ape, handy for boxing a nightmare for archery kit…my bikes a xl and is 90cm from bb to bar (35cm stem) but it’s also 60mm longer than the calculations say height x2.5….🤦🏻‍♂️😂😂😂

Saw the RAD sizing idea a while ago. I worked it out and it suggests a 500mm reach. My mountain bikes are mostly around that number, either slightly longer or shorter, not far out. But I still think reach is a byproduct of other measurements and angles that matter more, so isn’t the whole story. Sizing by reach alone is a mistake.

I think more important if they are too long or not, is that today you have options.
Look at Bird, a 6ft guy can chose between as much as 3 sizes (stretching it a bit, I know) and select dropper travel accordingly.

Yeah that’s a 35mm stem….not cm…😂😂😂

5’10” on large HD3 and it has a RAD of about 80cm. Trying the bike on some steps and testing that way seems about spot on.

If you’re 5’7” or under, especially with a shorter torso and/or arms, and wanting fun rather than fast, I’m not sure what you’re meant to buy?

I’m 5’7″ with slightly short legs (29″) and normal arms, usually puts me around the crossover between a small and medium frame.

Back when dropper posts first became normal, around 2010-12, I struggled with finding a bike with enough reach but a short enough seatpost to allow a 125mm dropper to go in. That’s no longer an issue but the reach figures are increasing massively. I can find manufacturers recommending me to have a bike size with anything from 420 to 480mm reach for the same type of bike. I know from my current bikes and ones I have demo’d that anything over the 460 mark pushes me too far forward to be comfortable while seated and anything under 425 leaves me with very little room to manoeuvre around going downhill. Anything between 430-460 seems to be my sweetspot, shorter for XC and trail with Enduro up near the top.

Watched the video, didn’t realise it was Lee McCormack inspiring this thread – I’ve been following his stuff since buying a copy of Mastering Mountain Biking Skills in 2009!

“I’m 5’7″ with slightly short legs (29″) and normal arms”

You might not realise it but having short legs means you can ride a longer reach bike – I’m 3.5” taller than you but my legs are 4.5” longer, so my torso is shorter. It’s your torso length that determines the reach you need – arms bend so longer arms mostly just give you more tolerance of a wider range of reaches.

I think really long bikes are a specialist thing for sure, I’ve always liked a longer bike but that’s because I like riding long-bike-stuff, recommending the same for everyone doesn’t make sense…

But equally, I have a Solarismax which while not massively long at just under 1200mm is a hardtail with more wheelbase and more reach than a long travel enduro bike had just a few years ago (it’s a medium but it’s longer and reacher than my size large Remedy 29, which won its last EWS overall in 2015). That’s a massive change over just a few years, but, it’s not made it into a compromised #enduro bike, it’s still a very good xc bike and mile muncher that’s also aquired a ton of dh and technical ability. It climbs better than my old 26er Soul… I don’t necessarily want a longer one but there’s never been a second I wish it were shorter.

But basically it feels like for a long time, there’s not been any need to ask about “too long” because essentially everything ought to have been longer, so the right answer was always “longer”. Now there’s probably a lot more bikes getting past that point where “longer” is a thing to choose rather than a thing to do automatically.

It’s like motorbikes… For decades, literally every motorbike was too bendy. Engines got pretty good, frames didn’t. So then for a long, long time every engineer just added more stiffness to every design, it was always the right decision. Til suddenly, it wasn’t- Honda made the RC51 and it was the first time anyone had really made a road bike that was just too stiff to work properly. Suddenly the design decision was different. Maybe that’s about where we are now, with longer.

Not across the board though- even in motorbikes there were still loads of bikes that needed to be stiffer even as the pointy end got too stiff, and when you look at entry level mountain bikes etc it still feels like basically all of them could have an extra inch in the front centre and be just overall better for it.

A man with admittedly argumentative opinions has had something to say about RAD…

As you can imagine, he’s scathing…

I don’t necessarily agree with the idea that long bikes descend well but don’t climb or pedal so well. My current hardtail climbs better than anything I’ve ever ridden, the reach is 9cm longer than the Cotic BFe it replaced. Yes it’s a long bike in terms of reach but the steep seat angle means it’s the same size from saddle to bars but I’m now far more centred on the bike so I don’t have a wandering front wheel on steep climbs and I can push the front much more into corners when descending.

Every bike will be compromised is some way, no it doesn’t manual as well as the Cotic but then that isn’t as easy to manual as my BMX.

I tried the measuring method, my jump bike is spot on, my enduro bike is probs around 15mm “too long”.

It is sizing around a very specific movement, I want full available power for that movement on my jump bike, I think it works out, it feels that way on my jump bike.

On my enduro bike, even being on the pumpy, hoppy end of the spectrum, do I need full potential for that specific movement, I don’t think I do, am I happy to trade for a bit of stabilty, I think I am.

So is he saying height x 2.5 = reach, or RAD?

Depends on what you are using it for. An all day XC type machine, it’s probably not that the reach is too long, but the seat angle is too steep. If you like the ups and especially the downs, no. Consensus seems to be that longer really is better. Bikes that are targeted at bike packing are still pretty short,with a more relaxed seat tube and a steeper head tube. Horses for courses.
What I would say is that the options for a decent all rounder are limited. Not too long, not too steep, not too short or slack.

You could pick the angles you want and then choose from at least two frame sizes, couldn’t you?

Depends on what you are using it for.

Well, if its reach it works for me – I’m comfortable withy Spark RC with a calculated number of 452.6, the Sparks reach is 456 with a 90mm Stem. But, my Clockwork Evo has a reach of 476, albeit with a 50mm Stem, and I find that comfy. So taking the Stems into account I have 546 on the XC race and 526 on the Evo play bike, which kind of make sense by accident…?

“ You could pick the angles you want and then choose from at least two frame sizes, couldn’t you?”

No, not if you’re a slightly shorter than average man or about 80% of women – a whole load of brands are now making their smallest size too long in reach for them.

I’m 6″4 with reach of 530 on my full suss, 520 on one hardtail and 480 on another.

The shorter hardtail has 26″ wheels in a 27.5″ frame. It is harder up hill, downhill and in the Twisties compared to the longer bikes.

I wouldn’t buy a MTB with a reach shorter than 520mm by choice any more.

Maybe I just like it, maybe I’m just used to it, probably I’ve fallen for fashion/ marketing.

Whatever it is if feels great bombing about 😃

So i’m 5.9” tall and live in Essex so definitely not blessed with steep or long hills but i’m very much in favour of the long, low and slack.

Bikes went from a medium commencal meta to a large banshee splitfire to a “medium “ longer geomatron with 500mm reach. I would say that even if I wanted an xc/trail bike I would still want it to be LLS which there are no bikes that fit the bill. Bikes are generally designed around to things, going up hill or down it. The reach measurement does depend on the length of the bike as well as seat tube angle. Why anyone would was a slack seat angle putting the weight over the rear wheel and not in the middle of the wheel is behound me. As soon as you point the bike down a hill the seat is dropped, is out of the way and it’s only the top tube length comes into play of how the bike will handle.

Stem length is another thing to discuss. If you’re riding a corner properly to shouldn’t be turning the bars much but leaning the bike over (again making the stem less of a requirement to man handle the front wheel (think of a tiler on a boat V a steering wheel of a car. A more direct connection to the steering inputs and direction change).

To me a bike should be like a custom suit to make sure it fits your exact fit (like a bike fit for road bikes) but there a only a few frames that truly allows you to adjust it to fit it to you (g1 being the only one or go custom athertons (but it’s custom one fit and not adjustable after it’s been made).

So I did some measuring today. His 2.5*height (180cm) puts my ideal reach at 450mm, or 459mm for ‘RAD+’. Measuring against a wall puts my RAD at 850mm, and comparing to my bikes the Whyte 901 is 870mm and the Cortex is 850mm. Interestingly from the geometry charts the Cortex reach is 465mm and Whyte is 476mm, so the different bar/spacer stack (both have 35mm stems) cause the extra difference.
From this I assume my torso is longer than his assumed proportions, or he assumes longer stem/taller bar than fitted to either bike, as both should be way too long.
Time to try to shorten the Whyte!

By the method of standing up in that position, making a mark on the wall etc, as per the video, if you take 2 people of otherwise identical dimensions but one with arms 10mm longer than the other has, the one with longer arms will have a “RAD” 10mm shorter and fit a smaller bike.

That doesn’t make much sense, surely?