Posts
1542
Joined
8/1/2009
Location
IL
Edited Date/Time
10/2/2022 1:00pm
It's no secret that bikes have been going "longer, lower and slacker" for some time now, but let's step back and put things into perspective when it comes to reach. Traditionally, each jump between frame sizes would represent an increase of about 15-20mm in reach. When Mondraker popularized their original Forward Geometry concept, they added 50mm to the reach and paired it with a 0mm stem, effectively putting the handlebar in the same place as before but growing the reach and wheelbase by a whopping 2.5 sizes. That's right, if 20mm is one size, then 50mm is 2.5 sizes up. In other words, if you were previously riding a medium, Mondraker would now have you riding an XL (we simplify here, because an ACTUAL XL would also be much taller, which might make it impossible for a shorter rider to use it, but it's to make a point). Mondraker mellowed down their original concept by moving to 30mm stems after a couple of years, but the long reach numbers remained. Many other brands have since followed suit, even though they may or may not have come up with a fancy term for doing so.
Having ridden plenty of bikes with longer reach, it's clear to us that the general evolution of bike geometry is headed in the right direction. There are many benefits to longer reach, and when you couple that with better angles and better suspension, you really end up with a very capable bike. Where exactly to stop, is another question altogether. How much reach is too much reach? Should you really be riding a bike that's 2 sizes longer than before? And if so, what WERE you riding before this one? We'd like to hear about your experiences and opinions, so vote in the poll and discuss in the comments!
{poll:318}
Having ridden plenty of bikes with longer reach, it's clear to us that the general evolution of bike geometry is headed in the right direction. There are many benefits to longer reach, and when you couple that with better angles and better suspension, you really end up with a very capable bike. Where exactly to stop, is another question altogether. How much reach is too much reach? Should you really be riding a bike that's 2 sizes longer than before? And if so, what WERE you riding before this one? We'd like to hear about your experiences and opinions, so vote in the poll and discuss in the comments!
{poll:318}
I'd rather have a moderate reach (430-ish for my 5'9" frame), and gain a bit of extra stability via longer chainstays. Splayleg mentioned the short reach on Rude's SB6, but that thing has a longer wheelbase than plenty of bikes with substantially longer reach measurements (partly due to the long stays). And for any bike that I'm gonna pedal uphill for a long time, I shy away from the super short stems. For climbs, and descents that aren't consistently steep, a short stem just makes it harder to keep the front wheel weighted. I stick to a 50mm on most bikes.
So in terms of where I've settled, my older bikes (depending on how far you go back) probably had reach numbers that were 30 or 40mm shorter than what I'm running now, but the effective top tubes were more like 15-20mm shorter since seat angles tended to be slacker.
430mm and 50mm on the Trail.
174cm.
Would probably like 10mm more on both but would rather have that 10mm on the rear centre on the AM.
Measure from inside the armpit to the tip of the longest finger. For me this is about 720mm. Then take the average head angle for the category of bike you want to ride, i.e., 67 or 66 for a trail bike, and divide that by 100. I Then multiply the arm measurement by one hundredth of the head angle, which for me looks like 720X0.66=475.2. If I want a more stable bike I add one percent of the arm measurement to the reach, in my case that is about 7mm, I would take that 7mm off the reach for a more agile or climb oriented bike. This process will also work for XC, Enduro, Park, and DH bikes. It struggles with DJ bikes, unless you take 10 degrees off the standard head angle before dividing by one hundred, i.e., (69-10)/100=0.59, this gets me much closer to reach numbers seen on DJ and Slopestyle bikes, especially if they have multiple sizes for the given model.
Anyway, I have not yet tested it by riding bikes on the trails with reach numbers close to what this method tells me I should ride, to see if i really like it better than the 430-440 reach numbers my current bikes have. But it does get me close to the reach numbers many manufactures are recommending to people of my height with their latest bikes, or in Kona's case, what they have become red to me for a few years now, so it may have some merit.
Having had the opportunity to ride several bikes back-to-back in different sizes but with the same trim, I feel like I can weigh in on this pretty well.
I'm 5'10" (178cm) tall and have been testing bikes in the 425-455mm reach range for a while now. After loads of experimentation, I've found bikes around 440mm paired with a 50mm stem to be the sweet spot for my preferred riding style. Most days I enjoy a more "playful" approach to riding.
When riding longer bikes my take-off points change and overall speed increases. Instead of popping off every little root or rock, I plough through them and bigger undulations in the trail become my takeoff points.
When I go too long (over 455mm), however, I have to drastically readjust my riding style to prevent the bike from "see-sawing" down the rowdiest steppy bits of trail, which can feel sketchy and uncontrolled at times.
I.e if you keep the ETT the same and steepen the seat angle the down tube grows longer and therefore so does reach.
Or have I misunderstood?
Either way I don’t like bent seat tubes either.
Some other random, unconnected thoughts:
1. This might be a tall guy thing, but short stems feel like doodoo. I'd rather run a 60mm than a 40mm any day. Interesting that BTurman also settled on 50mm stems.
2. I prefer shorter wheelbases for slower applications. 1280-1300 for DH, 1240-1280 for heavy trail stuff, and 1200-1240 for XC-type stuff. Like Brandon said, too long and it feels like a teeter totter down chunky stuff.
3. This means that I actually like my reach number a little shorter on my downhill bike, because otherwise the wheelbase gets too long with a slack head angle. I also think you get a little further behind the bars on a DH bike. Anyone else like a slightly shorter reach on a DH bike?
And I see what you're doing here with your clickbait forum questions. I hate myself for falling in every time, but I do it anyway. Well done.
The trail bikes I've ridden recently and liked were a medium Mona Process 153, Yeti Sb6...which was good, but felt kinda big for a medium and a Devinci Troy and Zerode. Only one I thought didn't seem right was the Zerode. My thing, and I've never got to figure out it out, is what kind of body type bikes are modeled around. I have stumpy legs and a REALLY long torso. 30" inseam. Wife is 5'2" & has the same inseam.
That's why i still maintain reach is a completely useless number, just because, like it has been said, the same reach number will mean two completely different cockpit lengths (ETT) with different seat tube angles. Heck, it can even mean that at 'the same seat tube angles' with these stupid bent seat tubes. Many bikes are now sold with '75° seat tube angles' with an actual post angle of closer to 60°. Extend that to ~800 mm over the BB and see what the effective angle is then.
And i've been ranting about this for way too long. About damn time i put my money where my mouth is and buy a Bird!
@turman and Robot, curious why you prefer 50mm over a 40mm? I just finally got a bike that fits me (I'm 6'2) and got a Process 134 XL. It came specced with a 40mm and I've been so stoked on a bike that fits that I haven't messed with stems.
I'm 6'1 ish, riding a large Patrol at 157mm reach. I would like maybe 10mm more, but I ride rocky techy trails (Grand Junction, Fruita). Anything more would increase the wheelbase too much.
I love it, it's so stable and rolls like made. Now I think that has a lot to do with angles and very much wheel size BUT... when I corner at speed and it's rough this bike has a huge 'sweet spot'. What I mean is, when I was on my old bike (the Reign) it cornered really well but I had to have my weight in just the right spot (not too much over the back or front) to get it to feel right. All that has gone with the new bike, it still helps to be in the middle of the bike - but I always am! My jumping has gone to next level and my speed also has gone to next level, without me actually improving any technique. Every trail has become funner as I'm going faster, getting more air and cornering like a hero (at least it feels like it in my mind). Manuals are a bit more effort perhaps (my profile pick is me manualling my XL slash btw) and going up tight switchback takes more focus (definitely feel the length there).
Longer definitely suits me & my riding style.
Happy trails boys and girls!
I believe that a longer reach suits a taller rider (or one with a longer tosro than inseam) or a physically stronger person than average (stronger back/core).
As bikes get better, and riders get stronger and more aggressive, it is unavoidable to match the geometry to their needs.
This sort of makes sense to me, although I can't put my finger on why it should make sense. But just from my personal trial and error with stems, I've landed on lengths that most closely correlate with the fork offset.
463mm. Stem on the XL is a 50, so probably a about a 10mm increase in reach with the grip to ground height unchanged.
Bike felt long but I’m sure I’ll get used to it and never look back. Maybe try a 40 stem also and a 44mm offset fork, we’ll see. I did notice I had to keep it leaned over a bit longer at corner exit or I’d run off the outside. I guess the extra wheelbase takes a millisecond longer to finish its turn.
I’ve been racing DH, slalom, and now Enduro for 25 years. Top end modern Enduro/trail bikes astound me with their capabilities. This 5.5 is insanely fast, a true racing machine. The E29 was really fast too but not quite the speed demon that the 5.5 is. I have to be flying before I even feel like the bike is really starting to work right and the faster I go the better it feels. It is no longer a question of bike capability, it is now information processing speed on the part of the pilot that it the limiting factor. Increased reach, up to a point, is part of this recipe.
What I think is every one seens to make their frame longer than before, so stick with the size you usually ride
Like I said earlier I think longer bikes are great for improving skills but once they’re improved a lot of riders will want to turn that traction control off and take control themselves. Even if that means they may not be going as fast.
Having said that though - I’m talking more about the likes of Geometron, Pole, etc. A general shift towards a more measured increase in reach as we have seen on average across most mainstream brands is a good thing for everyone I think.
Post a reply to: How Much Reach is Too Much Reach?