Has anyone downsized for back pain reasons? Im 5'10" riding an old XL patrol, 1245 WB, reasonably short ETT. I love it but my back is...
Has anyone downsized for back pain reasons? Im 5'10" riding an old XL patrol, 1245 WB, reasonably short ETT. I love it but my back is messed up. I have been riding this bike for about a year, stepped up from a large frame, and I can go really really fast on it but my back is killing me.
I go to phys therapy and I do a lot of stretches/workouts but still not really sure what I need to do / what actually works. I've had back pain since i was around 16, almost 30 now. I have my seat slammed forward and I roll the bars back in a 40mm stem to get them close as possible for climbing.
My goal is to ride everyday, I've been trying to achieve this for 3 years now, average ride is 1000-3000 ft. Last week my back finally felt good, like didnt hurt at all, I hit the bikes so hard and rode perfectly for 7 straight days. Come day 8, Im inexplicably destroyed and I haven't been able to really ride for 3 days, bummed! Im in the best shape of my life and not overweight, Im sure i have massive muscle imbalances though.
TL;DR: Will a shorter frame make my back hurt less often? It's hard to ride with back pain, it tightens everything and limits my movement.
Whats your bar height at? Im at 6'4 and ride an XL, I have struggled with lower back pain while riding and tried a few different things, putting a 40mm rise bar and getting the bar height up has helped a lot.
I have the opposite problem. Nothing was ever quite big enough. Bars always too low. Rear end balance totally out of whack because my higher seat height put me way back on standardized rear ends. Uncomfortable climbing because of slack seat tube angles combined with short tippy rear ends mean climbing is a constant battle to stay balanced.
Until now. Geometron G16 in XL. Yes those are 29" wheels. 535mm of reach and long chainstays make my 6'6" happy. Finally I get to run a proper 35mm stem too.
Shout out to Sensus Meaty Paw giant grips: finally a proper big grip.
Has anyone downsized for back pain reasons? Im 5'10" riding an old XL patrol, 1245 WB, reasonably short ETT. I love it but my back is...
Has anyone downsized for back pain reasons? Im 5'10" riding an old XL patrol, 1245 WB, reasonably short ETT. I love it but my back is messed up. I have been riding this bike for about a year, stepped up from a large frame, and I can go really really fast on it but my back is killing me.
I go to phys therapy and I do a lot of stretches/workouts but still not really sure what I need to do / what actually works. I've had back pain since i was around 16, almost 30 now. I have my seat slammed forward and I roll the bars back in a 40mm stem to get them close as possible for climbing.
My goal is to ride everyday, I've been trying to achieve this for 3 years now, average ride is 1000-3000 ft. Last week my back finally felt good, like didnt hurt at all, I hit the bikes so hard and rode perfectly for 7 straight days. Come day 8, Im inexplicably destroyed and I haven't been able to really ride for 3 days, bummed! Im in the best shape of my life and not overweight, Im sure i have massive muscle imbalances though.
TL;DR: Will a shorter frame make my back hurt less often? It's hard to ride with back pain, it tightens everything and limits my movement.
I'm 5'10" also, and I split my time between M/L, depending on the type of riding, and I don't think I could even effectively ride a modern XL... plus on frames larger than 19" I wouldn't be able to run a dropper (31" inseam). Reaches around 460mm are comfy and stable at speed, but not much fun; reaches under 445mm are much more playful (both with 30-40mm stems and 780-790mm bars). I wouldn't care to even ride a frame over 470mm reach, it would just put way too much forward weight on my hands, which I'd likely subconsciously compensate for with my back... With that said, have you tried changing bar height/width first?
Has anyone downsized for back pain reasons? Im 5'10" riding an old XL patrol, 1245 WB, reasonably short ETT. I love it but my back is...
Has anyone downsized for back pain reasons? Im 5'10" riding an old XL patrol, 1245 WB, reasonably short ETT. I love it but my back is messed up. I have been riding this bike for about a year, stepped up from a large frame, and I can go really really fast on it but my back is killing me.
I go to phys therapy and I do a lot of stretches/workouts but still not really sure what I need to do / what actually works. I've had back pain since i was around 16, almost 30 now. I have my seat slammed forward and I roll the bars back in a 40mm stem to get them close as possible for climbing.
My goal is to ride everyday, I've been trying to achieve this for 3 years now, average ride is 1000-3000 ft. Last week my back finally felt good, like didnt hurt at all, I hit the bikes so hard and rode perfectly for 7 straight days. Come day 8, Im inexplicably destroyed and I haven't been able to really ride for 3 days, bummed! Im in the best shape of my life and not overweight, Im sure i have massive muscle imbalances though.
TL;DR: Will a shorter frame make my back hurt less often? It's hard to ride with back pain, it tightens everything and limits my movement.
I moved to a smaller size and feel better. I have been moving between XL and L the past couple seasons and I think found my sweet spot with a L ripmo. I'm 6'2" but I have a long torso and short limbs. I was just too stretched in the back department on the longer bike. The longer bike felt great in straight high speed sections but I felt like more of a passenger than a rider because it put too much pressure on my back for extended riding to remain active with the bike. If I was racing, I would ride the XL. I'd be faster but for daily ridding the smaller size feels better is a bit more neutral in the back department for me.
It's important to note that the L ripmo is way bigger in the reach than the XL gen1 bronson I had 3 years ago, which was a bike I felt pretty good on.
Thanks again for all the replies. Im running 40mm rise bars with a 1mm spacer on top of a 130mm head tube, 170 fork. So pretty high rise for a 27.5 trail bike. Im at the top of my steer tube now, but would go higher if I could. Deity makes a set of 50mm rise bars that I have been eyeing.
Im building a L patrol for my old man right now, im gonna give that a whirl as soon as it's finished.
I think the problem is I have to hunch my shoulders forward the whole time I'm climbing. That and having to pull the bars really hard to loft the front wheel. I think i could afford to lose a little wheelbase and still be pretty happy.
I fell in love with the XL on the first ride, but looking back it was probably mostly due to bad fork performance on my L.
Has anyone downsized for back pain reasons? Im 5'10" riding an old XL patrol, 1245 WB, reasonably short ETT. I love it but my back is...
Has anyone downsized for back pain reasons? Im 5'10" riding an old XL patrol, 1245 WB, reasonably short ETT. I love it but my back is messed up. I have been riding this bike for about a year, stepped up from a large frame, and I can go really really fast on it but my back is killing me.
I go to phys therapy and I do a lot of stretches/workouts but still not really sure what I need to do / what actually works. I've had back pain since i was around 16, almost 30 now. I have my seat slammed forward and I roll the bars back in a 40mm stem to get them close as possible for climbing.
My goal is to ride everyday, I've been trying to achieve this for 3 years now, average ride is 1000-3000 ft. Last week my back finally felt good, like didnt hurt at all, I hit the bikes so hard and rode perfectly for 7 straight days. Come day 8, Im inexplicably destroyed and I haven't been able to really ride for 3 days, bummed! Im in the best shape of my life and not overweight, Im sure i have massive muscle imbalances though.
TL;DR: Will a shorter frame make my back hurt less often? It's hard to ride with back pain, it tightens everything and limits my movement.
Don't know about going with an L fixing your back. But i do hope you're joking with he 5ft10 height and riding an XL. Around 6ft3 is the height most companies start recommending an XL frame. That's 5 inches!! I think you should actually think about a medium at your height (with a properly fitting bike with a long reach for example. Bird recommend going with a large frame only at 5ft11!!).
I have the opposite problem. Nothing was ever quite big enough. Bars always too low. Rear end balance totally out of whack because my higher seat...
I have the opposite problem. Nothing was ever quite big enough. Bars always too low. Rear end balance totally out of whack because my higher seat height put me way back on standardized rear ends. Uncomfortable climbing because of slack seat tube angles combined with short tippy rear ends mean climbing is a constant battle to stay balanced.
Until now. Geometron G16 in XL. Yes those are 29" wheels. 535mm of reach and long chainstays make my 6'6" happy. Finally I get to run a proper 35mm stem too.
Shout out to Sensus Meaty Paw giant grips: finally a proper big grip.
Oh boy how do i share your feelings since i've gotten on my XL Bird...
Also, shout out to RF Grippler grips in 33 mm for the same reason. XXL gloved hands fitting nicely.
Many riders tend to still keep the same rise handlebars and same spacers under their stems when they get a new bike in the long, low, and slack era.
You actually need to get your bar height higher, particularly if you've chosen to upsize. Note that this may not be possible with some manufacturers who choose to cut steerer tubes really short, like YT.
The way i see it steeper seat tube angles bring your CoG forwards and help the pedalling that way. But the intention is also not to rotate the rider around the BB, but to open up te hip joint a bit and keep the rider at least as upright if not even more upright (since you can be relaxed while slogging up a hill and don't need to pull yourself over the bar to transfer the weight). With a steeper seat tube, you still need the same seat to BB length as before which then means you sit higher up (vertical over the BB ). To keep the same angle of the torso or even open it up, you need to raise the bars.
Remember, lengthening the reach by lengthening the BB to headtube horizontal is not the right way, you need to steepen the seat tube as well. The first is actually the consequence of the second.
Has anyone downsized for back pain reasons? Im 5'10" riding an old XL patrol, 1245 WB, reasonably short ETT. I love it but my back is...
Has anyone downsized for back pain reasons? Im 5'10" riding an old XL patrol, 1245 WB, reasonably short ETT. I love it but my back is messed up. I have been riding this bike for about a year, stepped up from a large frame, and I can go really really fast on it but my back is killing me.
I go to phys therapy and I do a lot of stretches/workouts but still not really sure what I need to do / what actually works. I've had back pain since i was around 16, almost 30 now. I have my seat slammed forward and I roll the bars back in a 40mm stem to get them close as possible for climbing.
My goal is to ride everyday, I've been trying to achieve this for 3 years now, average ride is 1000-3000 ft. Last week my back finally felt good, like didnt hurt at all, I hit the bikes so hard and rode perfectly for 7 straight days. Come day 8, Im inexplicably destroyed and I haven't been able to really ride for 3 days, bummed! Im in the best shape of my life and not overweight, Im sure i have massive muscle imbalances though.
TL;DR: Will a shorter frame make my back hurt less often? It's hard to ride with back pain, it tightens everything and limits my movement.
Few thoughts...
1) At 5'10" I'd say that XL Patrol is too long. Not saying you can't handle the reach, but between the reach and the imbalance (IMO) of that bike in longer sizes, its going to handle a lot worse than a M or L. EG, you'll really be challenged to shift your entire mass forward to keep weight on the front tire.
2) Back pain can be for a myriad of reasons. I always experienced this until I built my core up, and got my hip flexors under control. Sounds like you are working on this, but IMO 25mm of reach isn't the catalyst to the pain, but something else is. Try to stretch your hip flexors extensively. That has always been my go to when my back gets angry...well, that and hanging from a pullup bar while my girlfriend dangles from my legs. (I take no liability for this if you try it!)
3) Transition does have pretty short HTs. I've gone to a higher rise bar and like them. The wold "low is more betterer" adage from the Sam Hill era is good for Sam Hill, not everyone. I'd give a taller bar a try and slide your saddle as far forward as you can.
Few thoughts...
1) At 5'10" I'd say that XL Patrol is too long. Not saying you can't handle the reach, but between the reach and the...
Few thoughts...
1) At 5'10" I'd say that XL Patrol is too long. Not saying you can't handle the reach, but between the reach and the imbalance (IMO) of that bike in longer sizes, its going to handle a lot worse than a M or L. EG, you'll really be challenged to shift your entire mass forward to keep weight on the front tire.
2) Back pain can be for a myriad of reasons. I always experienced this until I built my core up, and got my hip flexors under control. Sounds like you are working on this, but IMO 25mm of reach isn't the catalyst to the pain, but something else is. Try to stretch your hip flexors extensively. That has always been my go to when my back gets angry...well, that and hanging from a pullup bar while my girlfriend dangles from my legs. (I take no liability for this if you try it!)
3) Transition does have pretty short HTs. I've gone to a higher rise bar and like them. The wold "low is more betterer" adage from the Sam Hill era is good for Sam Hill, not everyone. I'd give a taller bar a try and slide your saddle as far forward as you can.
I went full die hard on too small bike for a while(medium kona process), finally decided to try bigger (L patrol). I liked the L patrol so much that I just had to keep going lol, so I test ride the XL a few times and end up switching. My fork setup was atrocious at the time and I think this is partly the reason that my test rides on the xl felt good
Had it for a year and managed to win my first Cat 2 DH, it is fast but it takes too much muscle to ride on a daily basis. The seattubes on these bikes are getting low enough that upsizing is possible.
Have mild scholiosis so I am maybe a little longer in arm and leg than height suggests.
[img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/users/30878/setup_checks/37599/photos/86793/s1600_20181114_154022.jpg?1542298593[/img]
I went full die hard on too small bike for a while(medium kona process), finally decided to try bigger (L patrol). I liked the L...
I went full die hard on too small bike for a while(medium kona process), finally decided to try bigger (L patrol). I liked the L patrol so much that I just had to keep going lol, so I test ride the XL a few times and end up switching. My fork setup was atrocious at the time and I think this is partly the reason that my test rides on the xl felt good
Had it for a year and managed to win my first Cat 2 DH, it is fast but it takes too much muscle to ride on a daily basis. The seattubes on these bikes are getting low enough that upsizing is possible.
Have mild scholiosis so I am maybe a little longer in arm and leg than height suggests.
Good info. I'm also 5'10" with longer arms. I'm a fan of a size large in the old Patrol. I think you'll be happy with that decision!
Has anyone downsized for back pain reasons? Im 5'10" riding an old XL patrol, 1245 WB, reasonably short ETT. I love it but my back is...
Has anyone downsized for back pain reasons? Im 5'10" riding an old XL patrol, 1245 WB, reasonably short ETT. I love it but my back is messed up. I have been riding this bike for about a year, stepped up from a large frame, and I can go really really fast on it but my back is killing me.
I go to phys therapy and I do a lot of stretches/workouts but still not really sure what I need to do / what actually works. I've had back pain since i was around 16, almost 30 now. I have my seat slammed forward and I roll the bars back in a 40mm stem to get them close as possible for climbing.
My goal is to ride everyday, I've been trying to achieve this for 3 years now, average ride is 1000-3000 ft. Last week my back finally felt good, like didnt hurt at all, I hit the bikes so hard and rode perfectly for 7 straight days. Come day 8, Im inexplicably destroyed and I haven't been able to really ride for 3 days, bummed! Im in the best shape of my life and not overweight, Im sure i have massive muscle imbalances though.
TL;DR: Will a shorter frame make my back hurt less often? It's hard to ride with back pain, it tightens everything and limits my movement.
What is the reach on your XL Patrol? I'm 5'11" and have no back problems with a long bike (520mm of reach) what so ever. I find that being more stretched out and riding the bike in the middle/front is less tiring and gives you more control. Plus climbing is way better when coupled with a steep seat angle.
Has anyone downsized for back pain reasons? Im 5'10" riding an old XL patrol, 1245 WB, reasonably short ETT. I love it but my back is...
Has anyone downsized for back pain reasons? Im 5'10" riding an old XL patrol, 1245 WB, reasonably short ETT. I love it but my back is messed up. I have been riding this bike for about a year, stepped up from a large frame, and I can go really really fast on it but my back is killing me.
I go to phys therapy and I do a lot of stretches/workouts but still not really sure what I need to do / what actually works. I've had back pain since i was around 16, almost 30 now. I have my seat slammed forward and I roll the bars back in a 40mm stem to get them close as possible for climbing.
My goal is to ride everyday, I've been trying to achieve this for 3 years now, average ride is 1000-3000 ft. Last week my back finally felt good, like didnt hurt at all, I hit the bikes so hard and rode perfectly for 7 straight days. Come day 8, Im inexplicably destroyed and I haven't been able to really ride for 3 days, bummed! Im in the best shape of my life and not overweight, Im sure i have massive muscle imbalances though.
TL;DR: Will a shorter frame make my back hurt less often? It's hard to ride with back pain, it tightens everything and limits my movement.
Don't know about going with an L fixing your back. But i do hope you're joking with he 5ft10 height and riding an XL. Around 6ft3...
Don't know about going with an L fixing your back. But i do hope you're joking with he 5ft10 height and riding an XL. Around 6ft3 is the height most companies start recommending an XL frame. That's 5 inches!! I think you should actually think about a medium at your height (with a properly fitting bike with a long reach for example. Bird recommend going with a large frame only at 5ft11!!).
Different bike brands have different reach lengths for the same size. My Pole EVOLINK is an "L" but with a reach of 520mm it is equivalent to a XXL or XXXL of other brands...
Always best to look at the reach and stack instead.
No. I almost started quoting your previous post (quoting Skerby) but then i saw you quoted me as well.
You mentioned there that at 5ft11 you feel fine on a 520 mm reach bike. But your bike is a Large. This and the fact that different brands have different reach values across the same sizes just shows how utterly useless the reach value is when looked at as the only holy grail number. In that regard the effective top tube is much better.
I don't know which Evolink you have as all the current models in L have a 510 mm reach and XL models have a 535 mm reach. But nevertheless, lets go with 535. At 535 mm reach the Evolinks have a 669 mm effective top tube. My Bird, with a slightly slacker (but still steep) seat tube angle, has a 680 mm top tube, but only 522 mm of reach. Even though the reach of the Evolink will be 13 mm longer, the bike will still feel shorter for me. For the Stamina it's even 'worse', the XL is 540 mm of reach at 660 mm of effective top tube. With a much steeper seat tube angle, which means by rising the seat higher than the stack height (where the ETT actually makes the most sense) you gain a lot less length than on my frame that is a bit slacker.
Reach. Sucks.
It's much more informative, if you know what you're looking at and depending on the size (even more so if you're very tall), to look at the effective top tube and the seat tube angle, both effective and actual if possible. That will give you a much better feel for how the bike will fit.
The way i see it steeper seat tube angles bring your CoG forwards and help the pedalling that way. But the intention is also not to...
The way i see it steeper seat tube angles bring your CoG forwards and help the pedalling that way. But the intention is also not to rotate the rider around the BB, but to open up te hip joint a bit and keep the rider at least as upright if not even more upright (since you can be relaxed while slogging up a hill and don't need to pull yourself over the bar to transfer the weight). With a steeper seat tube, you still need the same seat to BB length as before which then means you sit higher up (vertical over the BB ). To keep the same angle of the torso or even open it up, you need to raise the bars.
Remember, lengthening the reach by lengthening the BB to headtube horizontal is not the right way, you need to steepen the seat tube as well. The first is actually the consequence of the second.
OK, that's fair reasoning for higher bars when climbing. But I don't set my bikes up primarily for climbing, and I find I prefer a low stack for descending.
Any other reasons?
No. I almost started quoting your previous post (quoting Skerby) but then i saw you quoted me as well.
You mentioned there that at 5ft11 you...
No. I almost started quoting your previous post (quoting Skerby) but then i saw you quoted me as well.
You mentioned there that at 5ft11 you feel fine on a 520 mm reach bike. But your bike is a Large. This and the fact that different brands have different reach values across the same sizes just shows how utterly useless the reach value is when looked at as the only holy grail number. In that regard the effective top tube is much better.
I don't know which Evolink you have as all the current models in L have a 510 mm reach and XL models have a 535 mm reach. But nevertheless, lets go with 535. At 535 mm reach the Evolinks have a 669 mm effective top tube. My Bird, with a slightly slacker (but still steep) seat tube angle, has a 680 mm top tube, but only 522 mm of reach. Even though the reach of the Evolink will be 13 mm longer, the bike will still feel shorter for me. For the Stamina it's even 'worse', the XL is 540 mm of reach at 660 mm of effective top tube. With a much steeper seat tube angle, which means by rising the seat higher than the stack height (where the ETT actually makes the most sense) you gain a lot less length than on my frame that is a bit slacker.
Reach. Sucks.
It's much more informative, if you know what you're looking at and depending on the size (even more so if you're very tall), to look at the effective top tube and the seat tube angle, both effective and actual if possible. That will give you a much better feel for how the bike will fit.
Huh?
Not to sound like a dick, but the reach measurement does not suck. It is by far the best measurement to determine if a bike is actually going to fit you.
Yes, there is some variation in the measurement, and things like fork length/BB height will impact reach, but reach gives you a pretty damn good idea how long the bike's cockpit will feel ***WHEN STANDING*** AKA going downhill which is really the purpose of Vital existing (the downhill part, not the uphill part).
The Evolink is known to be a long bike. Hence long reach measurements. They are suggesting everyone should be on a longer bike. Suggesting the Evolink is somehow measured wrong would be blasphemy. Just look at all the other stats (wheelbase for instance). Its a LONNG bike with everyone suggesting it is a LONNG bike.
Feel free to keep using a measurement from 10 years ago, but there is a reason most of us moved one from it. And its not some conspiracy...
OK, that's fair reasoning for higher bars when climbing. But I don't set my bikes up primarily for climbing, and I find I prefer a low...
OK, that's fair reasoning for higher bars when climbing. But I don't set my bikes up primarily for climbing, and I find I prefer a low stack for descending.
Any other reasons?
So much personal preference in what you are trying to suss out. Some like super low stacks while descending. Others like higher stacks. I'm sure someone at some point will figure this out more objectively, using arm length, leg length, torso length bla bla bla
For now, the only way to figure out what works and what doesn't work is by playing with it.
Personally, I've been a big fan of slightly taller bars. I liked it back in the days of 440mm reach being considered long, and still like it now that 500mm is considered long.
Play around with shiz!
...and also don't forget, we can adapt to more than we care to acknowledge. And there is no substitute for physical fitness, flexibility, and core strength!
No. I almost started quoting your previous post (quoting Skerby) but then i saw you quoted me as well.
You mentioned there that at 5ft11 you...
No. I almost started quoting your previous post (quoting Skerby) but then i saw you quoted me as well.
You mentioned there that at 5ft11 you feel fine on a 520 mm reach bike. But your bike is a Large. This and the fact that different brands have different reach values across the same sizes just shows how utterly useless the reach value is when looked at as the only holy grail number. In that regard the effective top tube is much better.
I don't know which Evolink you have as all the current models in L have a 510 mm reach and XL models have a 535 mm reach. But nevertheless, lets go with 535. At 535 mm reach the Evolinks have a 669 mm effective top tube. My Bird, with a slightly slacker (but still steep) seat tube angle, has a 680 mm top tube, but only 522 mm of reach. Even though the reach of the Evolink will be 13 mm longer, the bike will still feel shorter for me. For the Stamina it's even 'worse', the XL is 540 mm of reach at 660 mm of effective top tube. With a much steeper seat tube angle, which means by rising the seat higher than the stack height (where the ETT actually makes the most sense) you gain a lot less length than on my frame that is a bit slacker.
Reach. Sucks.
It's much more informative, if you know what you're looking at and depending on the size (even more so if you're very tall), to look at the effective top tube and the seat tube angle, both effective and actual if possible. That will give you a much better feel for how the bike will fit.
Huh?
Not to sound like a dick, but the reach measurement does not suck. It is by far the best measurement to determine if a bike...
Huh?
Not to sound like a dick, but the reach measurement does not suck. It is by far the best measurement to determine if a bike is actually going to fit you.
Yes, there is some variation in the measurement, and things like fork length/BB height will impact reach, but reach gives you a pretty damn good idea how long the bike's cockpit will feel ***WHEN STANDING*** AKA going downhill which is really the purpose of Vital existing (the downhill part, not the uphill part).
The Evolink is known to be a long bike. Hence long reach measurements. They are suggesting everyone should be on a longer bike. Suggesting the Evolink is somehow measured wrong would be blasphemy. Just look at all the other stats (wheelbase for instance). Its a LONNG bike with everyone suggesting it is a LONNG bike.
Feel free to keep using a measurement from 10 years ago, but there is a reason most of us moved one from it. And its not some conspiracy...
I agree that reach is useful for the fit of bikes when standing. WHich makes sense for DH bikes and bikepark bikes. Which is what... less than 1 % of the whole MTB scene? All other mountainbikes are designed to be pedalled. Pedalling is done sitting down. If you earn your descends (by pedalling up the mountain), you spend more than 90 % of your total time of riding sitting down and slogging it out.
A bike that is meant to pedal should fit you. When. You. Pedal. Period. Reach is useless here. So it's useless for ~99 % of the people. Useless as in it gives completely the wrong information, clearly shown above of how a 520 mm reach bike fits a guy at 5ft11. Yet at 6ft3 i ride 522 mm of reach and am extremely happy.
And i know the Pole is a looooooong bike. I have a looong bike. Which is necessary at my height for other reasons - CoG and position over BB and it being connected with the steepness of the seat tube, it being steep causing the bike to have a long reach, because the effective top tube needs to have an X length for the bike to fit. SO we are back at it. The bike needs to fit when pedalling.
I don't care how much descending you do on your enduro bike, if you only ride park, etc., the bike was designed to pedal. Just like the first and foremost priority of the suspension there is to have a correct amount of antisquat to prevent pedal bob and prevent the need to enable the platform of the shock, the first and foremost priority of the geometry of a bike like that is that it fits the rider sitting down, pedalling.
As for how the bike will fit, i previously had a Giant Reign (i went over this earlier in the thread, made a huge comparison with the Bird i'm riding now). It was a Large and it did not fit me. The reach was 458 mm, effective top tube was 640 mm. The XL version of the same bike is 480 and 665 mm. The L was okay but too short. THe XL was waaaaaay too long. The effective seat tube angle was 73° and my seat height is a bit over 800 mm (69° of actual seat tube angle, 72° at seat height). So with sucha height the actual cockpit length (horizontal from the seat to the bars) was actually much longer. Plus the fact that the XL was using a 70 mm stem, while the Large was on a 50 mm stem.
I'm currently riding the aformentioned Bird AM9 with 522 mm of reach, 680 mm of top tube, 76° of effective seat tube angle (71° actual, 75° at seat height) and a 40 mm stem. The bike fits insanely well, it's so comfortable. Two of my friends, on is still on the XL Reign, one swapped it out two years ago, both commented on how comfortable the Bird is as well.
So a short reach bike fit me somewhat, the medium reach bike is insanely weird, the insanely long reach bike fits me very well. How the hell is reach then usable?
No. I almost started quoting your previous post (quoting Skerby) but then i saw you quoted me as well.
You mentioned there that at 5ft11 you...
No. I almost started quoting your previous post (quoting Skerby) but then i saw you quoted me as well.
You mentioned there that at 5ft11 you feel fine on a 520 mm reach bike. But your bike is a Large. This and the fact that different brands have different reach values across the same sizes just shows how utterly useless the reach value is when looked at as the only holy grail number. In that regard the effective top tube is much better.
I don't know which Evolink you have as all the current models in L have a 510 mm reach and XL models have a 535 mm reach. But nevertheless, lets go with 535. At 535 mm reach the Evolinks have a 669 mm effective top tube. My Bird, with a slightly slacker (but still steep) seat tube angle, has a 680 mm top tube, but only 522 mm of reach. Even though the reach of the Evolink will be 13 mm longer, the bike will still feel shorter for me. For the Stamina it's even 'worse', the XL is 540 mm of reach at 660 mm of effective top tube. With a much steeper seat tube angle, which means by rising the seat higher than the stack height (where the ETT actually makes the most sense) you gain a lot less length than on my frame that is a bit slacker.
Reach. Sucks.
It's much more informative, if you know what you're looking at and depending on the size (even more so if you're very tall), to look at the effective top tube and the seat tube angle, both effective and actual if possible. That will give you a much better feel for how the bike will fit.
What? Reach is important because it can't be adjusted and it tells you how big the bike is when standing and descending (which always seems to 50% or more of the mileage that I do). Effective top tube can be greatly adjusted by sliding your seat forward or back.
The fact that your bike has a shorter reach but a longer effective top tube just means you are sitting further behind your bb. Sitting further behind the bb decreases your power (as you are pedaling forward like on a recumbent) and forces you to slide further forward on the saddle (decreasing leg extension) and/or hinge forward more at the hips (uncomfortable and probably taking away some power) to keep enough weight on the front end while climbing.
For what it’s worth, I refer to both reach and effective top tube dimensions when evaluating fit.
Effective top tube is how I perceive my peddling ‘reach’ based on seated riding. The actual reach measurement is my saddle dropped descending ‘reach’ which for me, determines how roomy the bike feels in downhill and tech runs.
Effective top tube length takes priority in my decision making as it’s easier to evaluate stem and bar lengths to get comfortable for the long haul. wheelbase comes second as that has the greatest impact on how lively the bike feels.
I’m definitely moving towards a higher front end, mostly with taller bars. I find longer bikes, coupled with the increase in wheelbase, benefit from the extra height as makes it easier to lift the front wheel.
All these numbers help determine the idea of a good fit but it’s far easier to evaluate with a test ride.
I agree that reach is useful for the fit of bikes when standing. WHich makes sense for DH bikes and bikepark bikes. Which is what... less...
I agree that reach is useful for the fit of bikes when standing. WHich makes sense for DH bikes and bikepark bikes. Which is what... less than 1 % of the whole MTB scene? All other mountainbikes are designed to be pedalled. Pedalling is done sitting down. If you earn your descends (by pedalling up the mountain), you spend more than 90 % of your total time of riding sitting down and slogging it out.
A bike that is meant to pedal should fit you. When. You. Pedal. Period. Reach is useless here. So it's useless for ~99 % of the people. Useless as in it gives completely the wrong information, clearly shown above of how a 520 mm reach bike fits a guy at 5ft11. Yet at 6ft3 i ride 522 mm of reach and am extremely happy.
And i know the Pole is a looooooong bike. I have a looong bike. Which is necessary at my height for other reasons - CoG and position over BB and it being connected with the steepness of the seat tube, it being steep causing the bike to have a long reach, because the effective top tube needs to have an X length for the bike to fit. SO we are back at it. The bike needs to fit when pedalling.
I don't care how much descending you do on your enduro bike, if you only ride park, etc., the bike was designed to pedal. Just like the first and foremost priority of the suspension there is to have a correct amount of antisquat to prevent pedal bob and prevent the need to enable the platform of the shock, the first and foremost priority of the geometry of a bike like that is that it fits the rider sitting down, pedalling.
As for how the bike will fit, i previously had a Giant Reign (i went over this earlier in the thread, made a huge comparison with the Bird i'm riding now). It was a Large and it did not fit me. The reach was 458 mm, effective top tube was 640 mm. The XL version of the same bike is 480 and 665 mm. The L was okay but too short. THe XL was waaaaaay too long. The effective seat tube angle was 73° and my seat height is a bit over 800 mm (69° of actual seat tube angle, 72° at seat height). So with sucha height the actual cockpit length (horizontal from the seat to the bars) was actually much longer. Plus the fact that the XL was using a 70 mm stem, while the Large was on a 50 mm stem.
I'm currently riding the aformentioned Bird AM9 with 522 mm of reach, 680 mm of top tube, 76° of effective seat tube angle (71° actual, 75° at seat height) and a 40 mm stem. The bike fits insanely well, it's so comfortable. Two of my friends, on is still on the XL Reign, one swapped it out two years ago, both commented on how comfortable the Bird is as well.
So a short reach bike fit me somewhat, the medium reach bike is insanely weird, the insanely long reach bike fits me very well. How the hell is reach then usable?
I pedal. Some might say I pedal too much. This sounds super douchy but for reference I usually log about 15-20K of climbing per week.
This bike time is usually spent on an enduro bike, being those are the only bikes in my garage this year.
Reach measurements over the last few seasons range from 465mm to over 500mm (edit, not 525-500mm).
Guess what? The top tube (and reach) of the bike is basically insignificant (within reason; compared to the standing fit).
I can make a HUGE range of sizes work when going uphill, and I'd wager I'm not alone. Riding while seated is an entirely different experience (see also: road bike riding). Make sure you can get proper extension from your legs, make sure your stack/bar rise is within reason and go hammer. You'll figure it out.
The only thing that matters significantly when going uphill is optimizing your pedal stroke, which is seldom talked about these days (in mtn biking). Turns out, super steep STAs aren't always awesome for getting the most seated power. Don't misread, I'm not suggesting we go back in time to slacker STAs, but I am suggesting if the focus was on the ups, we'd be designing bikes a hair differently.
Ultimately, the big takeaway here is there are subjective parts of bike fit ("what you like"), and objective parts of bike fit (how you are weighting the bike in a neutral position) with a human's cognitive bias making the bottom line decision more times than not...
Personally, I'm very willing to give up a little comfort going uphill (though I'm not sure I am) to have a bike that is well balanced and absolutely rips on the descent. I also am fairly certain most people here feel the same way...
OK, that's fair reasoning for higher bars when climbing. But I don't set my bikes up primarily for climbing, and I find I prefer a low...
OK, that's fair reasoning for higher bars when climbing. But I don't set my bikes up primarily for climbing, and I find I prefer a low stack for descending.
Any other reasons?
So much personal preference in what you are trying to suss out. Some like super low stacks while descending. Others like higher stacks. I'm sure someone...
So much personal preference in what you are trying to suss out. Some like super low stacks while descending. Others like higher stacks. I'm sure someone at some point will figure this out more objectively, using arm length, leg length, torso length bla bla bla
For now, the only way to figure out what works and what doesn't work is by playing with it.
Personally, I've been a big fan of slightly taller bars. I liked it back in the days of 440mm reach being considered long, and still like it now that 500mm is considered long.
Play around with shiz!
...and also don't forget, we can adapt to more than we care to acknowledge. And there is no substitute for physical fitness, flexibility, and core strength!
I'm all about the playing around with shiz, a firm believer in setup being the best bang for the buck upgrade available.
But stacking spacers to try a higher front (which I've done) also decreases reach (lose 5mm for every 10mm of spacers under the stem with a 67.5°HA, worse if slacker) and I don't have a pile of otherwise identical bars at different heights to try.
I guess I was asking for a rationale as to why a higher stack is better on a longer bike in general, as I'm pretty happy with the cockpit of my current bike, despite it being a terribly old fashioned large at ~450mm reach.
No. I almost started quoting your previous post (quoting Skerby) but then i saw you quoted me as well.
You mentioned there that at 5ft11 you...
No. I almost started quoting your previous post (quoting Skerby) but then i saw you quoted me as well.
You mentioned there that at 5ft11 you feel fine on a 520 mm reach bike. But your bike is a Large. This and the fact that different brands have different reach values across the same sizes just shows how utterly useless the reach value is when looked at as the only holy grail number. In that regard the effective top tube is much better.
I don't know which Evolink you have as all the current models in L have a 510 mm reach and XL models have a 535 mm reach. But nevertheless, lets go with 535. At 535 mm reach the Evolinks have a 669 mm effective top tube. My Bird, with a slightly slacker (but still steep) seat tube angle, has a 680 mm top tube, but only 522 mm of reach. Even though the reach of the Evolink will be 13 mm longer, the bike will still feel shorter for me. For the Stamina it's even 'worse', the XL is 540 mm of reach at 660 mm of effective top tube. With a much steeper seat tube angle, which means by rising the seat higher than the stack height (where the ETT actually makes the most sense) you gain a lot less length than on my frame that is a bit slacker.
Reach. Sucks.
It's much more informative, if you know what you're looking at and depending on the size (even more so if you're very tall), to look at the effective top tube and the seat tube angle, both effective and actual if possible. That will give you a much better feel for how the bike will fit.
I have a EVOLINK 176 with a +1º angleset which is why I have 520mm of reach rather than the normal 510mm for a size L.
Reach is a good value to let you know how the bike will feel when standing on the pedals. Obviously, you need to look at seat angle in combination with reach to determine your seated position and thus ETT.
That said I do get where you are coming from.
OK, that's fair reasoning for higher bars when climbing. But I don't set my bikes up primarily for climbing, and I find I prefer a low...
OK, that's fair reasoning for higher bars when climbing. But I don't set my bikes up primarily for climbing, and I find I prefer a low stack for descending.
Any other reasons?
So much personal preference in what you are trying to suss out. Some like super low stacks while descending. Others like higher stacks. I'm sure someone...
So much personal preference in what you are trying to suss out. Some like super low stacks while descending. Others like higher stacks. I'm sure someone at some point will figure this out more objectively, using arm length, leg length, torso length bla bla bla
For now, the only way to figure out what works and what doesn't work is by playing with it.
Personally, I've been a big fan of slightly taller bars. I liked it back in the days of 440mm reach being considered long, and still like it now that 500mm is considered long.
Play around with shiz!
...and also don't forget, we can adapt to more than we care to acknowledge. And there is no substitute for physical fitness, flexibility, and core strength!
I'm all about the playing around with shiz, a firm believer in setup being the best bang for the buck upgrade available.
But stacking spacers to...
I'm all about the playing around with shiz, a firm believer in setup being the best bang for the buck upgrade available.
But stacking spacers to try a higher front (which I've done) also decreases reach (lose 5mm for every 10mm of spacers under the stem with a 67.5°HA, worse if slacker) and I don't have a pile of otherwise identical bars at different heights to try.
I guess I was asking for a rationale as to why a higher stack is better on a longer bike in general, as I'm pretty happy with the cockpit of my current bike, despite it being a terribly old fashioned large at ~450mm reach.
Well what do you guys mean by high? My 520mm reach bike has a handlebar height of 105cm. I run a 180mm Dorado with a 650b front wheel for reference. If I switch to bigger wheels inevitably that handlebar height off the ground will increase as will bb height. If I try and run the bars any higher then I start to lose front wheel grip on flat terrain.
@jeff.brines if you value downhill performance and ripping so much and can make almost any bike work pedalling up and optimized stroke being the key to uphill performance, why do you ride an enduro bike? Why not just ride a full on DH rig? It will cover everything you need. It will absolutely rip going down and for going up it seems you will make it work.
(Yeah, i'm really trying to be a jerk here, but it kinda proves my point i'd say.)
Can someone critique my bike reach (XL carbine - 470mm reach)? By the sounds of this thread my 193cm needs 500mm+ reach to be up to date. whatever that means?
Until now. Geometron G16 in XL. Yes those are 29" wheels. 535mm of reach and long chainstays make my 6'6" happy. Finally I get to run a proper 35mm stem too.
Shout out to Sensus Meaty Paw giant grips: finally a proper big grip.
It's important to note that the L ripmo is way bigger in the reach than the XL gen1 bronson I had 3 years ago, which was a bike I felt pretty good on.
Im building a L patrol for my old man right now, im gonna give that a whirl as soon as it's finished.
I think the problem is I have to hunch my shoulders forward the whole time I'm climbing. That and having to pull the bars really hard to loft the front wheel. I think i could afford to lose a little wheelbase and still be pretty happy.
I fell in love with the XL on the first ride, but looking back it was probably mostly due to bad fork performance on my L.
Also, shout out to RF Grippler grips in 33 mm for the same reason. XXL gloved hands fitting nicely.
You actually need to get your bar height higher, particularly if you've chosen to upsize. Note that this may not be possible with some manufacturers who choose to cut steerer tubes really short, like YT.
Remember, lengthening the reach by lengthening the BB to headtube horizontal is not the right way, you need to steepen the seat tube as well. The first is actually the consequence of the second.
1) At 5'10" I'd say that XL Patrol is too long. Not saying you can't handle the reach, but between the reach and the imbalance (IMO) of that bike in longer sizes, its going to handle a lot worse than a M or L. EG, you'll really be challenged to shift your entire mass forward to keep weight on the front tire.
2) Back pain can be for a myriad of reasons. I always experienced this until I built my core up, and got my hip flexors under control. Sounds like you are working on this, but IMO 25mm of reach isn't the catalyst to the pain, but something else is. Try to stretch your hip flexors extensively. That has always been my go to when my back gets angry...well, that and hanging from a pullup bar while my girlfriend dangles from my legs. (I take no liability for this if you try it!)
3) Transition does have pretty short HTs. I've gone to a higher rise bar and like them. The wold "low is more betterer" adage from the Sam Hill era is good for Sam Hill, not everyone. I'd give a taller bar a try and slide your saddle as far forward as you can.
I went full die hard on too small bike for a while(medium kona process), finally decided to try bigger (L patrol). I liked the L patrol so much that I just had to keep going lol, so I test ride the XL a few times and end up switching. My fork setup was atrocious at the time and I think this is partly the reason that my test rides on the xl felt good
Had it for a year and managed to win my first Cat 2 DH, it is fast but it takes too much muscle to ride on a daily basis. The seattubes on these bikes are getting low enough that upsizing is possible.
Have mild scholiosis so I am maybe a little longer in arm and leg than height suggests.
Always best to look at the reach and stack instead.
You mentioned there that at 5ft11 you feel fine on a 520 mm reach bike. But your bike is a Large. This and the fact that different brands have different reach values across the same sizes just shows how utterly useless the reach value is when looked at as the only holy grail number. In that regard the effective top tube is much better.
I don't know which Evolink you have as all the current models in L have a 510 mm reach and XL models have a 535 mm reach. But nevertheless, lets go with 535. At 535 mm reach the Evolinks have a 669 mm effective top tube. My Bird, with a slightly slacker (but still steep) seat tube angle, has a 680 mm top tube, but only 522 mm of reach. Even though the reach of the Evolink will be 13 mm longer, the bike will still feel shorter for me. For the Stamina it's even 'worse', the XL is 540 mm of reach at 660 mm of effective top tube. With a much steeper seat tube angle, which means by rising the seat higher than the stack height (where the ETT actually makes the most sense) you gain a lot less length than on my frame that is a bit slacker.
Reach. Sucks.
It's much more informative, if you know what you're looking at and depending on the size (even more so if you're very tall), to look at the effective top tube and the seat tube angle, both effective and actual if possible. That will give you a much better feel for how the bike will fit.
Any other reasons?
Not to sound like a dick, but the reach measurement does not suck. It is by far the best measurement to determine if a bike is actually going to fit you.
Yes, there is some variation in the measurement, and things like fork length/BB height will impact reach, but reach gives you a pretty damn good idea how long the bike's cockpit will feel ***WHEN STANDING*** AKA going downhill which is really the purpose of Vital existing (the downhill part, not the uphill part).
The Evolink is known to be a long bike. Hence long reach measurements. They are suggesting everyone should be on a longer bike. Suggesting the Evolink is somehow measured wrong would be blasphemy. Just look at all the other stats (wheelbase for instance). Its a LONNG bike with everyone suggesting it is a LONNG bike.
Feel free to keep using a measurement from 10 years ago, but there is a reason most of us moved one from it. And its not some conspiracy...
For now, the only way to figure out what works and what doesn't work is by playing with it.
Personally, I've been a big fan of slightly taller bars. I liked it back in the days of 440mm reach being considered long, and still like it now that 500mm is considered long.
Play around with shiz!
...and also don't forget, we can adapt to more than we care to acknowledge. And there is no substitute for physical fitness, flexibility, and core strength!
A bike that is meant to pedal should fit you. When. You. Pedal. Period. Reach is useless here. So it's useless for ~99 % of the people. Useless as in it gives completely the wrong information, clearly shown above of how a 520 mm reach bike fits a guy at 5ft11. Yet at 6ft3 i ride 522 mm of reach and am extremely happy.
And i know the Pole is a looooooong bike. I have a looong bike. Which is necessary at my height for other reasons - CoG and position over BB and it being connected with the steepness of the seat tube, it being steep causing the bike to have a long reach, because the effective top tube needs to have an X length for the bike to fit. SO we are back at it. The bike needs to fit when pedalling.
I don't care how much descending you do on your enduro bike, if you only ride park, etc., the bike was designed to pedal. Just like the first and foremost priority of the suspension there is to have a correct amount of antisquat to prevent pedal bob and prevent the need to enable the platform of the shock, the first and foremost priority of the geometry of a bike like that is that it fits the rider sitting down, pedalling.
As for how the bike will fit, i previously had a Giant Reign (i went over this earlier in the thread, made a huge comparison with the Bird i'm riding now). It was a Large and it did not fit me. The reach was 458 mm, effective top tube was 640 mm. The XL version of the same bike is 480 and 665 mm. The L was okay but too short. THe XL was waaaaaay too long. The effective seat tube angle was 73° and my seat height is a bit over 800 mm (69° of actual seat tube angle, 72° at seat height). So with sucha height the actual cockpit length (horizontal from the seat to the bars) was actually much longer. Plus the fact that the XL was using a 70 mm stem, while the Large was on a 50 mm stem.
I'm currently riding the aformentioned Bird AM9 with 522 mm of reach, 680 mm of top tube, 76° of effective seat tube angle (71° actual, 75° at seat height) and a 40 mm stem. The bike fits insanely well, it's so comfortable. Two of my friends, on is still on the XL Reign, one swapped it out two years ago, both commented on how comfortable the Bird is as well.
So a short reach bike fit me somewhat, the medium reach bike is insanely weird, the insanely long reach bike fits me very well. How the hell is reach then usable?
The fact that your bike has a shorter reach but a longer effective top tube just means you are sitting further behind your bb. Sitting further behind the bb decreases your power (as you are pedaling forward like on a recumbent) and forces you to slide further forward on the saddle (decreasing leg extension) and/or hinge forward more at the hips (uncomfortable and probably taking away some power) to keep enough weight on the front end while climbing.
In short, reach is a great measurement.
Effective top tube is how I perceive my peddling ‘reach’ based on seated riding. The actual reach measurement is my saddle dropped descending ‘reach’ which for me, determines how roomy the bike feels in downhill and tech runs.
Effective top tube length takes priority in my decision making as it’s easier to evaluate stem and bar lengths to get comfortable for the long haul. wheelbase comes second as that has the greatest impact on how lively the bike feels.
I’m definitely moving towards a higher front end, mostly with taller bars. I find longer bikes, coupled with the increase in wheelbase, benefit from the extra height as makes it easier to lift the front wheel.
All these numbers help determine the idea of a good fit but it’s far easier to evaluate with a test ride.
This bike time is usually spent on an enduro bike, being those are the only bikes in my garage this year.
Reach measurements over the last few seasons range from 465mm to over 500mm (edit, not 525-500mm).
Guess what? The top tube (and reach) of the bike is basically insignificant (within reason; compared to the standing fit).
I can make a HUGE range of sizes work when going uphill, and I'd wager I'm not alone. Riding while seated is an entirely different experience (see also: road bike riding). Make sure you can get proper extension from your legs, make sure your stack/bar rise is within reason and go hammer. You'll figure it out.
The only thing that matters significantly when going uphill is optimizing your pedal stroke, which is seldom talked about these days (in mtn biking). Turns out, super steep STAs aren't always awesome for getting the most seated power. Don't misread, I'm not suggesting we go back in time to slacker STAs, but I am suggesting if the focus was on the ups, we'd be designing bikes a hair differently.
Ultimately, the big takeaway here is there are subjective parts of bike fit ("what you like"), and objective parts of bike fit (how you are weighting the bike in a neutral position) with a human's cognitive bias making the bottom line decision more times than not...
Personally, I'm very willing to give up a little comfort going uphill (though I'm not sure I am) to have a bike that is well balanced and absolutely rips on the descent. I also am fairly certain most people here feel the same way...
But stacking spacers to try a higher front (which I've done) also decreases reach (lose 5mm for every 10mm of spacers under the stem with a 67.5°HA, worse if slacker) and I don't have a pile of otherwise identical bars at different heights to try.
I guess I was asking for a rationale as to why a higher stack is better on a longer bike in general, as I'm pretty happy with the cockpit of my current bike, despite it being a terribly old fashioned large at ~450mm reach.
Reach is a good value to let you know how the bike will feel when standing on the pedals. Obviously, you need to look at seat angle in combination with reach to determine your seated position and thus ETT.
That said I do get where you are coming from.
(Yeah, i'm really trying to be a jerk here, but it kinda proves my point i'd say.)
Post a reply to: How Much Reach is Too Much Reach?