Do Long reach hardtails, make sense?

Hi chaps,

After posting a thread about what size BFe to get, it started me thinking about what the benefits and drawbacks of the long reach hard tail are.

The reviews of the Pipedream Moxie are all positive, and don’t call out any negatives.

When I’m thinking long reach, I mean 470mm or above for someone who’s under 6 foot.

Are there drawbacks? Or is it all just progression, and a long reach is what we should be riding for hardtails too? When don’t they work? XC riding?

Ricks

I think 470mm reach on a HT is pushing it a bit. While I’ll defend LTHT to the death as a whole heap of fun, it’s true that they are pretty compromised, as the terrain gets steeper and the fork compresses, it can change the head angle quite dramatically, and I imagine the long reach will only compromise that more. But having said that, on regular chattery straight-ish descents, I imagine they’d go like trains if you’ve the balls to leave the brakes open.

for a given reach figure, a sagged hardtail has a longer reach than the equivalent full sus bike.

I ride a long-ish hardtail (dartmoor hornet, 450mm) and I’m tallish (6’2). I actually find it less playful than its predecessor (a 430mm ns surge – it does also have a longer backend).

In my opinion an aggro hardtail is about popping off stuff, being playful. An agro full sus bike is often about battering through stuff at high speed. Reach length is a compromise of the two, so I would personally say that longer isn’t as much better on a HT as it might be on a full sus

your milage may vary..

My old Bluepig had a reach of 470mm and sometimes felt big (I’m 6′ 2″). Now riding a Switch back at 444mm which feels more comfortable and quicker. I think the move to steel and shorter chainstays has made the biggest difference.

My old Bluepig had a reach of 470mm

eh? the largest bluepig is 425mm according to their site..

There’s an interesting article here on the Kingdom Bike’s website, comparing the X2 in different guises..long and slack, short etc..
Kind of answers your question, and it’s a good read!

DrP

I think Dan Stanton touched on this in an interview I read a while back.
His opinion was that really long reach on a HT was a compromise too far – as mentioned above when the fork compresses the reach extends further.

Conversely with a FS as the rear suspension compresses the reach shortens, add in the forks compressing and I suppose it’ll stay around the same if both are working together.

But then again there must be a demand and people must like them as there seem to be a fair amount of long reach HT’s on the market.

His opinion was that long reach on a HT was a compromise too far –

I have 16.5 long switchback. it’s the best HT I’ve ridden

Just the same as full sussers really – they make perfect sense for long reach humans who can harness their advantages whilst not being unduly affected by the disadvantages that folks with shorter a reach  would encounter and be hampered by-ie not being able to weight front wheel from their own natural neutral position riding position and also not being able to get weight backwards towards the rear axle to unweight the front end when needed.

At 5’7″ with relatively long legs and  short upper body reach capacity they certainly don’t suit me,my personal cut off point is around 425mm for reach.

His opinion was that long reach on a HT was a compromise too far

I have 16.5 long switchback. it’s the best HT I’ve ridden

Sorry – just re-read my comment, it should have been ‘really long reach’ – I don’t think his long is as long as some bikes seem to be going.

The reach on the 16.5 Long is 428 – which is only about 4mm longer than my 16.5″ Nukeproof Scout.

Compare that to a similar size Wulf from Sick which is 455 – it’s all relative I suppose to how you ride and other factors.

there seem to be a fair amount of long reach HT’s on the market.

theres some long-ish reach out there, but not huge compared to full sus – theres a bunch of XL full sus bikes with 500mm+ reach – I don’t think I’ve seen a single hardtail with the same stats.  The longest Geometron  hardtail is 495mm for example whereas their full sus bike is a full 60mm longer. playing with a geometry calculator, 10mm on the forks is approx 3mm on reach uncompressed (this would be less towards the end of the travel), so a fully compressed 150mm fork would only add 30-40mm of reach at most..

I think you would notice the diff between an FS and HT when climbing.  The FS would sink into the rear travel helping you get the weight back (for rear grip) the HT wouldn’t.

My mk1 Switchback feels about right at whatever it is (~400mm or so) with a short stem and 40mm rise bars, anything longer wouldn’t be as much fun for the stuff I like to do and it’s my only bike so whatever I have has to be good at lots of stuff.

The longer reach is there so the stem can be shorter, usually 35mm. The shorter stem means the bars are on top of or behind the front wheel axle which means the bike handles better and eliminates issues like front wheel tuck. That’s where the front wheel will suddenly snap in on you while turning resulting in hospitalisation in my case! Which is why I recently sold my Enduro and am buying a new Cotic Flare. Cy at Cotic did a great interview with Chris of Downtime Podcast explaining all this, I’ll dig out a link….

http://www.downtimepodcast.com/cy-turner/

Well not really.  Even taking the shorter stems into account, modern “proper long” geometry puts the hands a bit further forward (relative to the feet/arse) than they used to be, for what one might call “trail” geometry anyhow.

My mk1 Switchback feels about right at whatever it is (~400mm or so) with a short stem and 40mm rise bars, anything longer wouldn’t be as much fun for the stuff I like to do and it’s my only bike so whatever I have has to be good at lots of stuff.

I’d agree with that – my Mk II Switchback climbed better than my Mk I and was a bit better at monster trucking through stuff, but it wasn’t quite as much fun. It didn’t encourage you to pop off stuff etc in the same way.

Good call DrP, makes an intresting read

Longer bikes work well when you have suspension, I’ve not ridden a reeeeally long susser but the general point works for me. I like longer wheelbases on road bikes also (eg gravel bikes on 25-28mm vs a trad race bike). But hardtails, not so sure. Yes, add reach to get the stem length down. But there’s a point where the bike loses some of what I like about a hardtail. My fave HTs have always felt like a sized-up 4X bike, making the most of how manouverable and involving a HT can be. Go really long (and long-forked) and you’re getting closer to a FS w/o the sus kind of feel which is fine, no probs with that. Good for a 2.6″ 29er. But for a really fun HT, I’d go for 27.5, 120mm max on the forks and a reach that’s probably middle-ground by the range available today, rather than truly long.

This is really helpful, looking at the thread, it sounds like if I want to replace my Evil Insurgent, then I’d be going very long . If I want something different, then I go smaller, with a medium reach

If I understand this right when people refer to longer it’s actually just the top tube that’s longer. A shorter stem is used to bring the reach back to where it should be. The result is just a longer front centre, and wheelbase. The only downside of this would be more difficult manouvrability on tight corners.

I’m not so sure that’s true. Most MTB stems have been in the 50-60mm range for a few years now. you can pull that back to 35mm (maybe 32mm at a push), saving you <20mm. Reach especially on full sus bikes) has grown by more than 20mm in the, so in a standing up position you feel more stretched. Sitting down, seat tubes have got steeper, so it probably evens out

All the focus seems to be on the fit/handling when standing. I admit that’s when the fun stuff is happening, but if I’m honest with myself, 90% of my ride time is spent sitting down pedalling.

If I understand this right when people refer to longer it’s actually just the top tube that’s longer. A shorter stem is used to bring the reach back to where it should be. The result is just a longer front centre, and wheelbase. The only downside of this would be more difficult manouvrability on tight corners.

Ish.

Reach is defined as the horizontal distance from the BB to the headtube (i.e. the bit that matters when stood up).

A typical large XC bike with a 110mm stem would have had a reach of about 430mm, assuming you take that as a starting point of what’s comfortable then with a 35mm stem you could go as far as 510mm reach without actually changing the geometry of the rider.

Shorter stems however need to be coupled with slack head angles (or the other way round). a 71deg HA and 35mm stem would feel a bit weird and twitchy to say the least (try riding a BMX, similar angles but 60mms tems).  So the whole front of the bike grows as the fork is slackened off to ~65-66 deg.

Now the front center is really long, and all the riders weight ends up on the rear wheel, great for avoiding OTB’s, not so great for anything resembling front tyre grip in a corner.  So you have to extend the chainstays a bit too to push the riders weight forward again.

You can argue those points in the opposite order, but the basics is that the whole bike frame gets longer, the head angle gets slacker, and seeing as the geometry is now so compromised away from what would be considered spirited climbing the BB is usually dropped as well as if it’s rocky enough to be striking the pedals whilst climbing your probably struggling to lift the front wheel too as it’s now up the hill somewhere in a different postcode.

I’ve gone from a small Cotic Soul (275) to a large Whyte 909 a reach change of about 40mm. My last bike was too small and I had a bit of pain in my back as a result of being crouched over all the time.

I’m average height, but I have long arms and I find the extra reach on the Whyte amazing. I’ve put a 31mm Renthal Stem on it and have no problems looping out when attempting to manual/wheelie. The bike climbs much better and goes like a train downhill.

Personally I think people focus on reach to the point of forgetting the other things which make up a great bike.

My Whyte is super slack with a really low BB and short chain stays. The fork is 130mm, so it doesn’t wallow and steepen the HA on descents. They made it long, but they made a whole bike not a top tube.

Personally I can’t stand long reach on any bike. So for me, No. they make no sense.
Yes, a longer bike (reach or chainstays) would be more stable but with the extra stability always comes less pop, playfulness and maneouverability.
Same with long forks.

I haven’t used longer than a 55mm stem on any mtb since 1994 and all my all round use hardtails since then have either been 4X or dirt jump bikes with massive seatposts, a light but strong build and gears to give them all round versatility. Their reaches have ranged from 390-415mm, chainstays always right around 400mm and despite being an evenly proportioned 5’11” I find bikes this short massively capable everywhere except maybe climbing the very steepest techiest terrain.
Currently I’m riding a 100mm forked Dartmoor Hornet 4X with a 250mm dropper. (415mm reach, 35mm stem, 400mm stays and a low BB)
It handles brilliantly everywhere.

@Jameso totally agree with what you’re saying about wanting a hardtail to ride like a 4X bike, but not the sizing up part. For me, sizing up kills all their best qualities.

I had the last model genesis high latitude 29er with 490mm reach, I’m 6’2. I felt after coming from a codeine with 420mm reach it was more confident in the steep enduro type stuff as I had loads more room to shift my weight around. Ran it with a 1 degree angle set and forks at 130mm -it was alot of fun.

It’s interesting that someone mentioned the Dan Stanton article about long reach hardtails. The new 16.5 switchback 29er (their latest hardtail frame) has a reach that is something like 35mm longer than the 650b Switchback frame.

I imagine both bikes are built for similar types of riding, so why the massive jump? Was his previous article just justifying the bikes they already have, or is the new bike to keep up with the industry trends?

Or maybe it’s just to give the riders more of a choice. I’d be interested to hear what influenced their design of it.

Comparing length for different heights is a bit fraught.  One modern trend that is separate, but related to, going long (for stability etc.) is going short (seatpost height wise) so longer travel dropper posts can be fitted.   My pre-long Transition Bandit 29er is a large (19″ in old money) and I can just fit a 125mm Reverb in.  The current large Smuggler is both longer and less high by a good few cm.  My hardtail (Genesis Tarn) is a medium because I thought the large would be a bit too long for me, and I didn’t want to have to slam the seatpost down (though I think a large would have been OK for me with a 125mm dropper).

Um, so I suppose what I am saying is sizing has gone a bit funny and just because the manufacturer says you are the right height for a large or whatever, you might not see it that way.

Um, so I suppose what I am saying is sizing has gone a bit funny

Funny in a good way imho, but then I do like a longish bike. It used to be the case the seat tube > reach, now it’s going the other way, which I think is a good thing. Decent reach and a long dropper.

I always find it odd nobody ever mentions comfort in these threads. Comfort to me is every bit as important as how it rides pointing downhill. My experience of long, which usually goes alongside a low frame, is a bike that is very stretched and not at all comfortable for long use and pedalling duties.

I spend more time seated and pedalling than on the gnar stuff, so comfy is important too.

The distance from the seat to the bars is the same on my modern long and slack bike as it is on my 90’s short and steep old school geo bike, so I don’t feel stretched out at all, in fact it’s more comfortable with the higher bars than the old XC position. The longer reach is accounted for with shorter stem, steeper seat tube angle and inline seat posts. The reach becomes noticeable, in a very good way, when standing.

I’m very much a long reach convert.  Not necessarily low or slack, but long reach yes.

My bikes are not stretched out.  The steep seat angle sorts that out, along with making an excellent climbing, efficient pedaller.  And a 30mm stem.

It’s not the be all and end all, you’ll get used to different styles of bikes.  That said, going from a short to long bike felt immediately good.  Going back to the short bike was simply horrible.  Mine have gone.

I’d post a pic but the new and improved forum is sadly a load of old cock.

And I’d edit the above statement now that the picture has appeared, but I can’t make it work.  No wonder this place is getting more dead every day.

Each to their own of course, but when I had a go on the 480mm reach BTR Ranger I thought it was amazing.

I’m 6’1” not terribly good.

It just whipped along. Amazing bike.

470 reach when under 6′ seems a bit of a stretch to me.  Each to their own though.

I’m nearer 6′ 3″ and my XL 901 certainly feels long at 475.  Tis nice and relaxed though, but probably not as taut as I’d like.  The HA with the Yari 140 instils confidence on the steep stuff, but only to a degree … as the Bird AM I tested last year had a very similar reach but was more assertive pointing down.

As an aside, my 56 Friston rocks a 430 reach and is incredibly manoeuvrable and balanced on all terrain.

I always find it odd nobody ever mentions comfort in these threads. Comfort to me is every bit as important as how it rides pointing downhill. My experience of long, which usually goes alongside a low frame, is a bike that is very stretched and not at all comfortable for long use and pedalling duties.

I spend more time seated and pedalling than on the gnar stuff, so comfy is important too.

But as pointed out, even the longest of long reaches is still comparable or shorter than the XC equivalent once you’ve put an appropriate stem on.

The apartment we rented on holiday t’other week came with bikes, the gentleman’s dandyhorse was an old V-braked Scott Boulder with narrow bars and at least a 6″ stem, reminded me of my ’97 Orange C16 and felt incredibly uncomfortable, much hand pain even after two or three steady miles. Chap who’s bike it was could only have bern about my height, I’m 5′ 10″ with comparatively short legs and a long body.

[/endblither]

“My experience of long, which usually goes alongside a low frame”

If you mean low as in stack height and/or handlebar height, then I’d say that isn’t true for modern longer, lower, slacker bikes. The lowness is the BB height and seat tube length.

My bars have gone higher and higher as I’ve gone from a 400mm reach Soul to a 425mm reach Spitfire to a 455mm reach Zero and Spitfire (all mediums apart from the second Spitfire). In fact I’ve just got some 40mm riser bars for the newest bike! And they’ve all had 50mm stems.