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...
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?
193cm tall and 470mm reach!!! Wow!
It depends on whether or not you want to ride more centered and/or if you want to run a shorter stem. If yes then yeah you could add 50-60mm of reach. If you are happy riding off the back then just stick with what you have. However, longer reach will also improve climbing if that matters to you.
@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...
@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.)
Lol.
It proves nothing.
People aren't buying bikes with 64 deg HTAs, 160mm+ travel and dampers that have as much technology as a top tier rally car to "value uphill performance".
I ride an enduro bike because I race enduro (shocking). As a racer, I know I need to value downhill performance far more than uphill performance. Its simple really, one part of the ride I'm timed on, the other I'm not.
I'm also not alone. Any racer I know skews their entire bike toward DH performance. At a point, it becomes "too much", eg, weight over 40 pounds, tires that roll like shit etc. But if there is one place we're all willing to sacrifice for the descent its geometry.
The irony however is I think we are all learning what works going downhill also works pretty well going uphill...
They ramped up their reach game. For XL sizing their bikes just about got useable.
Though i would still like to see their actual seat tube angle. It kind of appears they steepened it up just a bit. But still, such slackness (at least they went 77+ on the virtual 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.
So, pulled the trigger on a shorter bike and Im stoked. I lost about an inch of wheelbase and I think over an inch of ETT, reach maybe is half an inch shorter. Back feels much better, can power through the end of climbs without muscles tightening up and slowing me down. On top of that, the smaller bike does not feel short/sketchy at all. I think its even more stable than my XL patrol was.
2 years on from the last post, do we still think the same? Have we jumped on board with the modern geo train?
I rolled the dice pretty hard on my next bike, For reference, I'm 6'1 (185cm, 100kg/225lb) I don't think the reach is my worry, it's the 1336mm wheelbase lol. I've done the modern geo thing before (stumpjumper evo 29'er in S3) and it was good.
Due to a few reasons, I'm downsizing my fleet to just 1 bike now. (ebike hate incoming) but this will be my trail, enduro, dh, gravel, commuter bike, pub runner all in one.
Have I fu**ed up here, this is a big bike, but I'm a big boy. Note that the bike is on its way, I have no way of sitting on one do to the stock/covid shit show. I bought purely off reviews, geo sheets and too much beer.
All I will say is you're gonna notice an extra 45mm in reach and an extra 106mm in wheelbase. That's a huge jump.
yep without a doubt. The current bike is too small for me. I've ridden ~500mm reach bikes before and took to it like a duck to water. The wheelbase and chainstay are the wildcards for me.
This could be the best, or worst decision I've made.... and I'm married lol!
yep without a doubt. The current bike is too small for me. I've ridden ~500mm reach bikes before and took to it like a duck to...
yep without a doubt. The current bike is too small for me. I've ridden ~500mm reach bikes before and took to it like a duck to water. The wheelbase and chainstay are the wildcards for me.
This could be the best, or worst decision I've made.... and I'm married lol!
no single number defines a bike, but the merida looks relatively short and dated (even for 2019) adding 20mm and 10mm of travel, 3.5 degrees slacker head angle, 29" wheels AND a longer reach is going to increase the wheelbase but none of those figures are outrageous on their own. Just changing the head handle (+180mm fork) roughly equates to 40mm of that. Even if you went with slightly more conservative geometry it would probably only be about 20mm shorter at the wheelbase. If you find the Merida short and have already tried 500mm+ bikes then I think you will be very happy with the norco
yep without a doubt. The current bike is too small for me. I've ridden ~500mm reach bikes before and took to it like a duck to...
yep without a doubt. The current bike is too small for me. I've ridden ~500mm reach bikes before and took to it like a duck to water. The wheelbase and chainstay are the wildcards for me.
This could be the best, or worst decision I've made.... and I'm married lol!
no single number defines a bike, but the merida looks relatively short and dated (even for 2019) adding 20mm and 10mm of travel, 3.5 degrees slacker...
no single number defines a bike, but the merida looks relatively short and dated (even for 2019) adding 20mm and 10mm of travel, 3.5 degrees slacker head angle, 29" wheels AND a longer reach is going to increase the wheelbase but none of those figures are outrageous on their own. Just changing the head handle (+180mm fork) roughly equates to 40mm of that. Even if you went with slightly more conservative geometry it would probably only be about 20mm shorter at the wheelbase. If you find the Merida short and have already tried 500mm+ bikes then I think you will be very happy with the norco
Good shout Jono, You are right, as a total package I think it should impress.
For the nerds amongst us, chucked the big girl into Linkage, nice numbers for a plow on coil
Norco didn't release the info as a 4 bar eeb system is pretty hotly contested stuff. Mods if this causes trouble I can delete.
Not to comment on your fleet, but i went all out on my last bike, Geometron g16, and it was a total beast downhill and the fastest bike i have had. Though it was too long, i missed some fun other than pointing downhill. Bunnyhops and playfullness.
I went to relative modern geo with a Starling Swoop.
I "downsized" according to the manufacturer recommendations in order to get a more balanced bike (front center to rear center ratio). I only had a handful of rides on the bike but it feels great so far.
Like someone else already posted and there was some discussion of knolly in the previous older posts but 1 number does not make a bike. Knolly have a very short headtube so most people end up adding a few spacers under the stem effectively shortening the reach. I am 5'11 and ride a size large Warden with 500mm reach and it seems to fit me fairly well.
I'm 5'11", and find that bikes with a 480+mm reach can feel a bit unwieldy, like they lock you into a single position and don't allow you to move around on the bike. However if I were to size down to a medium, I'd be on a bike that has 460ish mm reach, which I feel is a bit short. In an ideal world the head angles, rear centers etc. would stay as they are now, but reach would get a tad shorter.
Alternatively all companies could just start using straight ZS56 head tubes (shout out to Transition for being rad like that). That way folks like me can get that 475mm reach we want, and the long-bois can get they're 485mm reaches too.
All I will say is you're gonna notice an extra 45mm in reach and an extra 106mm in wheelbase. That's a huge jump.
Can confirm, went from a Large Giant Reign 2015 to an XL Bird AM9 and it's very noticeable. Plus I'm on 522 or 525 mm reach at 190 cm.
As for the wheelbase, DAAAAAAAAMN DANIEL that's a long bike. Speaking from experience, 1292 mm in the wheelbase department is quite long, I would actually very much like to properly (say, 5 rides) try out a smaller bike to be honest. It's awesome when it's wide open, hold on for your dear life kind of stuff, but once it gets a bit more twisty, technical and the like, such a big bike is a bit cumbersome. And I'm not even talking about the added weight of an e-bike.
While I was all for longer bikes, 'proper cockpit lengths' and the rest of the Kool-Aid, we might have just reached the limit geometry wise. Maybe it's me, getting older and getting a bit more precarious in my riding, maybe it's the fact I bought a bike catering to my strengths (wide open, higher speed chunder) instead of catering to my weaknesses, but yeah, it might be worth it taking bikes back a notch to make them more enjoyable instead of more faster. The more faster approach works for racing, but how many of us race? Even for those that do race, how often do they (we) actually race when riding?
Primoz, this will also be my race bike (yeah I race e-mtb, it's awesome) so it will tick that box as the courses will definitely play into the Norco's favor.
So why the range and not the sight you are probably asking, and it's a valid question. Like I said, this is my do it all bike, the tracks that are local and I enjoy riding and steep and loose, hand cut sketchy lines.
The reasoning for "all the travel" is you are assisted by a dirty old motor, efficiency, pedal bob, antisquat bla bla bla gets thrown out the window. You tend use more travel on a given trail on a e-mtb due to the weight and less ability to chose a line, rather you see a line and just smash through everything to come out the other side. So whilst 150mm on the sight seems appropriate, it's arguably not enough travel, However, the Sights Geo seems on point more to me as an all rounder.
My main concern is weighting the front wheel, as above I had a stumpy evo, which I even stupidly overforked. Front end traction was "interesting" to say the least. I revisited a few of Steve @ Vorsprungs vids on advanced Geo comparisons, in particular about FC to RC measurements, the Norco, whilst having some wild numbers came out with a ratio of 1.89. Which isn't where Pole/Geometron are. It would be akin to an older XL Transition Sentinel. So if I can weight the front wheel, I will be fine I think.
A large range is 475mm reach at 77deg SA, I've breifly ridden the new High Pivot Range at 480mm and similar SA and immediately said "I'd go XL" so that was part of my rationale, also everyone said when in doubt, size up..... shiiiiiiit
I suppose I've made my choice, now it's a waiting game for it to arrive and take that first ride, I'm most definately in my own head and freaking myself out. I wish I knew nothing about geometry and kinematics sometimes, would make life much simpler and worry free.
I'm with you on the "if you can only have one bike, might as well get an ebike with all the travel", but I would be a little cautious about comparing reach, and maybe even wheelbase, from a regular bike accross to an e-bike.
E-bikes are so stable you don't really need the extra stability of ultra modern geometry. My enduro (YT capra) is 1cm longer in reach full 29, but feels lieka BMX compared to my mullet meta power. So while I could be interested in going bigger on the YT, I'm not convinced I want to go bigger on the ebike.
All track style dependent of course, will be interesting to see how that works out for you on singletrack.
I'm with you on the "if you can only have one bike, might as well get an ebike with all the travel", but I would be...
I'm with you on the "if you can only have one bike, might as well get an ebike with all the travel", but I would be a little cautious about comparing reach, and maybe even wheelbase, from a regular bike accross to an e-bike.
E-bikes are so stable you don't really need the extra stability of ultra modern geometry. My enduro (YT capra) is 1cm longer in reach full 29, but feels lieka BMX compared to my mullet meta power. So while I could be interested in going bigger on the YT, I'm not convinced I want to go bigger on the ebike.
All track style dependent of course, will be interesting to see how that works out for you on singletrack.
Norco's e-bikes also all have really long rear centers (462mm across all sizes for the Range). Obviously this helps you keep from looping out on steep climbs, but it also would make the bike even more stable.
Got the bike, glad I went XL, doesn't feel too big at all. Was a case of the numbers on paper not translating into what I thought they would on the trail. Total beast and manageable
It is stupidly heavy, at 28kg! but once rolling you forget about it. The biggest surprise is the steep seat tube angle, that's awesome!
Ok first ride is done and can confirm everything I was worried about was a complete non event. I'm actually super happy I went XL now. The reach is spot on, I wasn't stretched out or cramped, just centered nicely between the wheels and finally got that "in the bike" feel that I've been chasing that I only felt on a Supreme.
The huge ass chainstay and wheelbase was only a positive for me. Front end grip is ridiculous for something with a 63deg H/A. Flat turns didn't require any forward weight bias than normal, you just lean and it follows. I never felt like I couldn't maneuver the bike any worse than my old one, rather I felt I could let it eat more, off the brakes and the long wheelbase just tracked straight! I did a few cheeky features I had never done before at this spot, some rock rolls that would almost certainly have been OTB moments were no issue. However the confidence got a little too high and I had a hugey later in the day
Probably the biggest surprise was the climbing, it was insane! I did short vertical pinches I couldn't get close to before. The combo of steep seat tube, long C/S and wheelbase made climbing take a lot less effort than before, that was the biggest eye opener for me.
So in short, whilst this Geo seems downright bonkers on paper, the sum of it all works in a cohesive matter, maybe because it's an ebike this geo works? I'm not sure. But either way I'm stoked with it and my mind is at rest about this gamble on bike Geo.
Ok first ride is done and can confirm everything I was worried about was a complete non event. I'm actually super happy I went XL now...
Ok first ride is done and can confirm everything I was worried about was a complete non event. I'm actually super happy I went XL now. The reach is spot on, I wasn't stretched out or cramped, just centered nicely between the wheels and finally got that "in the bike" feel that I've been chasing that I only felt on a Supreme.
The huge ass chainstay and wheelbase was only a positive for me. Front end grip is ridiculous for something with a 63deg H/A. Flat turns didn't require any forward weight bias than normal, you just lean and it follows. I never felt like I couldn't maneuver the bike any worse than my old one, rather I felt I could let it eat more, off the brakes and the long wheelbase just tracked straight! I did a few cheeky features I had never done before at this spot, some rock rolls that would almost certainly have been OTB moments were no issue. However the confidence got a little too high and I had a hugey later in the day
Probably the biggest surprise was the climbing, it was insane! I did short vertical pinches I couldn't get close to before. The combo of steep seat tube, long C/S and wheelbase made climbing take a lot less effort than before, that was the biggest eye opener for me.
So in short, whilst this Geo seems downright bonkers on paper, the sum of it all works in a cohesive matter, maybe because it's an ebike this geo works? I'm not sure. But either way I'm stoked with it and my mind is at rest about this gamble on bike Geo.
E bikes have the most to gain and least to lose by growing the wheelbase. I think under human power a lot of what is comfortable depends on your build/riding style especially since 100 percent of momentum comes from gravity or your quads. Usually people end up shortening one number to keep things a little less cumbersome and that number reflects what they are looking for in a pedal bikes characteristics.
Ok first ride is done and can confirm everything I was worried about was a complete non event. I'm actually super happy I went XL now...
Ok first ride is done and can confirm everything I was worried about was a complete non event. I'm actually super happy I went XL now. The reach is spot on, I wasn't stretched out or cramped, just centered nicely between the wheels and finally got that "in the bike" feel that I've been chasing that I only felt on a Supreme.
The huge ass chainstay and wheelbase was only a positive for me. Front end grip is ridiculous for something with a 63deg H/A. Flat turns didn't require any forward weight bias than normal, you just lean and it follows. I never felt like I couldn't maneuver the bike any worse than my old one, rather I felt I could let it eat more, off the brakes and the long wheelbase just tracked straight! I did a few cheeky features I had never done before at this spot, some rock rolls that would almost certainly have been OTB moments were no issue. However the confidence got a little too high and I had a hugey later in the day
Probably the biggest surprise was the climbing, it was insane! I did short vertical pinches I couldn't get close to before. The combo of steep seat tube, long C/S and wheelbase made climbing take a lot less effort than before, that was the biggest eye opener for me.
So in short, whilst this Geo seems downright bonkers on paper, the sum of it all works in a cohesive matter, maybe because it's an ebike this geo works? I'm not sure. But either way I'm stoked with it and my mind is at rest about this gamble on bike Geo.
E bikes have the most to gain and least to lose by growing the wheelbase. I think under human power a lot of what is comfortable...
E bikes have the most to gain and least to lose by growing the wheelbase. I think under human power a lot of what is comfortable depends on your build/riding style especially since 100 percent of momentum comes from gravity or your quads. Usually people end up shortening one number to keep things a little less cumbersome and that number reflects what they are looking for in a pedal bikes characteristics.
Yeah I agree, if this was a trail bike it would probably suck. The numbers are longer than XL DH bikes but cohesively the bike works wonderfully. Everyone who has taken it for a spin has said it feels a lot smaller than the numbers suggest. But the tapemeasure doesn't lie, it's actually 1340 wheelbase by my measurements!
yep without a doubt. The current bike is too small for me. I've ridden ~500mm reach bikes before and took to it like a duck to...
yep without a doubt. The current bike is too small for me. I've ridden ~500mm reach bikes before and took to it like a duck to water. The wheelbase and chainstay are the wildcards for me.
This could be the best, or worst decision I've made.... and I'm married lol!
You'll get used to the extra length soon enough and then forget about it.
It depends on whether or not you want to ride more centered and/or if you want to run a shorter stem. If yes then yeah you could add 50-60mm of reach. If you are happy riding off the back then just stick with what you have. However, longer reach will also improve climbing if that matters to you.
It proves nothing.
People aren't buying bikes with 64 deg HTAs, 160mm+ travel and dampers that have as much technology as a top tier rally car to "value uphill performance".
I ride an enduro bike because I race enduro (shocking). As a racer, I know I need to value downhill performance far more than uphill performance. Its simple really, one part of the ride I'm timed on, the other I'm not.
I'm also not alone. Any racer I know skews their entire bike toward DH performance. At a point, it becomes "too much", eg, weight over 40 pounds, tires that roll like shit etc. But if there is one place we're all willing to sacrifice for the descent its geometry.
The irony however is I think we are all learning what works going downhill also works pretty well going uphill...
Small: 452
Medium: 475.5
Large: 500
X-Large: 520
Though i would still like to see their actual seat tube angle. It kind of appears they steepened it up just a bit. But still, such slackness (at least they went 77+ on the virtual angle...)
So, pulled the trigger on a shorter bike and Im stoked. I lost about an inch of wheelbase and I think over an inch of ETT, reach maybe is half an inch shorter. Back feels much better, can power through the end of climbs without muscles tightening up and slowing me down. On top of that, the smaller bike does not feel short/sketchy at all. I think its even more stable than my XL patrol was.
2 years on from the last post, do we still think the same? Have we jumped on board with the modern geo train?
I rolled the dice pretty hard on my next bike, For reference, I'm 6'1 (185cm, 100kg/225lb) I don't think the reach is my worry, it's the 1336mm wheelbase lol. I've done the modern geo thing before (stumpjumper evo 29'er in S3) and it was good.
Due to a few reasons, I'm downsizing my fleet to just 1 bike now. (ebike hate incoming) but this will be my trail, enduro, dh, gravel, commuter bike, pub runner all in one.
Have I fu**ed up here, this is a big bike, but I'm a big boy. Note that the bike is on its way, I have no way of sitting on one do to the stock/covid shit show. I bought purely off reviews, geo sheets and too much beer.
Comparison is new bike to current.
This could be the best, or worst decision I've made.... and I'm married lol!
For the nerds amongst us, chucked the big girl into Linkage, nice numbers for a plow on coil
Norco didn't release the info as a 4 bar eeb system is pretty hotly contested stuff. Mods if this causes trouble I can delete.
I went to relative modern geo with a Starling Swoop.
Alternatively all companies could just start using straight ZS56 head tubes (shout out to Transition for being rad like that). That way folks like me can get that 475mm reach we want, and the long-bois can get they're 485mm reaches too.
As for the wheelbase, DAAAAAAAAMN DANIEL that's a long bike. Speaking from experience, 1292 mm in the wheelbase department is quite long, I would actually very much like to properly (say, 5 rides) try out a smaller bike to be honest. It's awesome when it's wide open, hold on for your dear life kind of stuff, but once it gets a bit more twisty, technical and the like, such a big bike is a bit cumbersome. And I'm not even talking about the added weight of an e-bike.
While I was all for longer bikes, 'proper cockpit lengths' and the rest of the Kool-Aid, we might have just reached the limit geometry wise. Maybe it's me, getting older and getting a bit more precarious in my riding, maybe it's the fact I bought a bike catering to my strengths (wide open, higher speed chunder) instead of catering to my weaknesses, but yeah, it might be worth it taking bikes back a notch to make them more enjoyable instead of more faster. The more faster approach works for racing, but how many of us race? Even for those that do race, how often do they (we) actually race when riding?
Primoz, this will also be my race bike (yeah I race e-mtb, it's awesome) so it will tick that box as the courses will definitely play into the Norco's favor.
So why the range and not the sight you are probably asking, and it's a valid question. Like I said, this is my do it all bike, the tracks that are local and I enjoy riding and steep and loose, hand cut sketchy lines.
The reasoning for "all the travel" is you are assisted by a dirty old motor, efficiency, pedal bob, antisquat bla bla bla gets thrown out the window. You tend use more travel on a given trail on a e-mtb due to the weight and less ability to chose a line, rather you see a line and just smash through everything to come out the other side. So whilst 150mm on the sight seems appropriate, it's arguably not enough travel, However, the Sights Geo seems on point more to me as an all rounder.
My main concern is weighting the front wheel, as above I had a stumpy evo, which I even stupidly overforked. Front end traction was "interesting" to say the least. I revisited a few of Steve @ Vorsprungs vids on advanced Geo comparisons, in particular about FC to RC measurements, the Norco, whilst having some wild numbers came out with a ratio of 1.89. Which isn't where Pole/Geometron are. It would be akin to an older XL Transition Sentinel. So if I can weight the front wheel, I will be fine I think.
A large range is 475mm reach at 77deg SA, I've breifly ridden the new High Pivot Range at 480mm and similar SA and immediately said "I'd go XL" so that was part of my rationale, also everyone said when in doubt, size up..... shiiiiiiit
I suppose I've made my choice, now it's a waiting game for it to arrive and take that first ride, I'm most definately in my own head and freaking myself out. I wish I knew nothing about geometry and kinematics sometimes, would make life much simpler and worry free.
E-bikes are so stable you don't really need the extra stability of ultra modern geometry. My enduro (YT capra) is 1cm longer in reach full 29, but feels lieka BMX compared to my mullet meta power. So while I could be interested in going bigger on the YT, I'm not convinced I want to go bigger on the ebike.
All track style dependent of course, will be interesting to see how that works out for you on singletrack.
Just makes the sprung to un-sprung ratio higher
The huge ass chainstay and wheelbase was only a positive for me. Front end grip is ridiculous for something with a 63deg H/A. Flat turns didn't require any forward weight bias than normal, you just lean and it follows. I never felt like I couldn't maneuver the bike any worse than my old one, rather I felt I could let it eat more, off the brakes and the long wheelbase just tracked straight! I did a few cheeky features I had never done before at this spot, some rock rolls that would almost certainly have been OTB moments were no issue. However the confidence got a little too high and I had a hugey later in the day
Probably the biggest surprise was the climbing, it was insane! I did short vertical pinches I couldn't get close to before. The combo of steep seat tube, long C/S and wheelbase made climbing take a lot less effort than before, that was the biggest eye opener for me.
So in short, whilst this Geo seems downright bonkers on paper, the sum of it all works in a cohesive matter, maybe because it's an ebike this geo works? I'm not sure. But either way I'm stoked with it and my mind is at rest about this gamble on bike Geo.
Post a reply to: How Much Reach is Too Much Reach?