[djjohnr]

Given how much bike geometry has been changing it would be interesting to see what other people are running. List your current bike geo - head angle, reach, stack, wheelbase and chainstay length, your height, any setup notes you want to call out and what you think of the geo overall.

height - 179cm. I've got a bad back that limits flexibility a bit.

FR bike

• HA - 64.25
• reach - 446 (claimed for steep position, I use the slack position which doesn't have a listed reach, stack, WB or CS)
• stack - 589
• wheelbase - 1194.5
• chainstay - 429
• hbar- 780

setup - currently running a 780mm bar and 40mm stem, may go to a 35mm as I still occasionally have problems weighting the front wheel. When I ran this bike with an angleset to slacken it out 1 degree I was able to run a 45mm.

Trail bike

• HA - 66.1 (with an angleset to slacken it out, stock is 67)
• reach - 440
• stack - 609
• wheelbase - 1162
• chainstay - 426

setup - running a 780mm bar and 45mm stem. Similar to the Knolly I've found running a slacker head angle helps me weight the front wheel without having to go shorter on the stem.

Overall - I don't think I like the long reach combined with short chainstay trend. I like the room a longer cockpit provides (compared to the ~400mm reach bikes I was riding a few years ago) but taken too far it requires too much body english back and forth to weight the wheels.

 

[jonKranked]

A^2 + B^2 = C^2

 

['size]

i'm adding bottom bracket as well.

trail (only) bike : 140 rr x 160 fr
1803400 micrometers tall

HA : 66
BB : 13
RE : 16.73
ST : 22.48
WB : 45.5
CS : 17.3

50mm stem
750mm bars

still getting used to the longer CS than i've ever run with manuals and wheelies (which i don't do often so it's not a huge deal). do like the better stability in general though.

 

[troy]

Height: 6.2 / 189cm
DH - 8.18" / 208mm of travel

HA: 62.5 deg.
BB:13.2" / 335 mm
WB: 47.85" /1215 mm
CS: 16.15" / 410 mm
Reach: 17.7" / 450 mm
Stack: 23.6" / 600 mm

50 mm stem
800 mm bar

 

[mykel]

DH

Large
HA: 63.5
BB: 13.9 / 354
WB: 47.8 / 1214
CS: 17.25 / 439
Reach: 17.0 / 432
Stack: 23.4 / 593

50mm Stem
780mm Bars

 

[slimshady]

Height: 1.83 m

Trail

Large Orbea Rallón R4
HA: 65.5°
BB: 338 mm
WB: 1204 mm
CS: 420 mm
Reach: 467 mm
Stack: 624 mm

Running a 50mm stem, planning to mill/cnc a 45mm one.
Running 785mm bars.

 

[Toshi]

173 cm height. Trailbike.

Medium SC 5010 v2:

HA 67
BB 334
WB 1141
CS 426
Reach 425
Stack 595

50 mm stem, I believe. 760 mm bars but probably will jump back to 780 or 800 when I start to fear the carbonz are near the end of their life.

 

[kickstand]

173 cm height. Trailbike.

Medium SC 5010 v2:

HA 67
BB 334
WB 1141
CS 426
Reach 425
Stack 595

50 mm stem, I believe. 760 mm bars but probably will jump back to 780 or 800 when I start to fear the carbonz are near the end of their life.

How tall is that in anericanese?

I ride a large 5-10

 

[bengxe]

I'm 174cm, or about 5'9.
Dh
Large 2012 demo
HA 63.5
Reach 443mm
Stack 596mm
WB 1212mm
CS 420mm
BB 346mm
Stem 45mm

Trail
Large 2015 banshee rune
HA 64
reach 432
Stack 593
WB 1188
CS 430
BB 346
Stem 50mm

780 bars on both

 

[hmcleay]

Good thread!
Metric FTW!

I'm 176cm tall.
This is my bike for offroad mountain cycling:

WB = 1170mm
HA = 66.5deg
SA = 75.2deg
CS = 418mm
BB drop = 10mm (below axles)
Reach = 445.5mm
Stack = 609.5mm
stem = 50mm
bar = 770mm

 

[rollertoaster]

This is a great idea for a thread.
Might want to add wheel size and amount of travel to the list

 

[Olly]

2015 Transition Suppressor Large
I'm ~180cm / 5'11"

Wheels = 26"
Travel = F160mm / R155mm
WB = 1210mm
HA = 65deg
SA = 74.9deg
CS = 430mm
BB drop = 3mm
Reach = 457mm
Stack = 602mm
Stem = 40mm
Bar = 780mm

Mostly it's ace, but sometimes I feel like I could go even longer on the reach. Wasn't super happy with a 50mm stem though.

 

[Happymtb.fr]

currently running a 780mm bar and 40mm stem, may go to a 35mm as I still occasionally have problems weighting the front wheel.

Can you explain that?
Instinctively I would say that a longer stem would help you to weight the front wheel more since it would shift your COM forward (given that you keep your arms at the same length )
I actually went from a 35mm to a 50mm stem on my HT since I was loosing traction on flatish turns and it did work to regain traction but I also learned at the same time to actively shift my body forward while riding so that I don't know which one was the most effective way of regaining that lost traction...

 

[dump]

I hope these are measurements you've taken, because in my experience manufacturer listed specs are often quite off.

 

[djjohnr]

Can you explain that?
Instinctively I would say that a longer stem would help you to weight the front wheel more since it would shift your COM forward (given that you keep your arms at the same length )
I actually went from a 35mm to a 50mm stem on my HT since I was loosing traction on flatish turns and it did work to regain traction but I also learned at the same time to actively shift my body forward while riding so that I don't know which one was the most effective way of regaining that lost traction...

The longer the stem the more I have to shift my weight forward out of my neutral position to weight the front in downhill corners. The shorter the stem the less I have to shift. Slackening the front end with an angle set let me run a longer stem - I think whats going on there is it's increasing the front-center which makes me more comfortable keeping my COG farther forward full time. If thats the case maybe something with longer reach would be better (seems counterintuitive), I need to demo something with around ~460mm reach to find out for sure.

 

[schwaaa31]

Am I the only one who doesn't know the measurements on my bike? Besides head angle and bar width maybe. I know my DH bike is a large.

 

[kickstand]

Am I the only one who doesn't know the measurements on my bike? Besides head angle and bar width maybe. I know my DH bike is a large.

Yeah, I only know them if I look them up. Both of my bikes are large, I'm 5-10 and my trail bike is a 760 bar, DH is an 800 Bar....that's about all I can recall off the top of my head. Oh, and unrideable vpp and 27.5 wheels

 

[Happymtb.fr]

The longer the stem the more I have to shift my weight forward out of my neutral position to weight the front in downhill corners. The shorter the stem the less I have to shift. Slackening the front end with an angle set let me run a longer stem - I think whats going on there is it's increasing the front-center which makes me more comfortable keeping my COG farther forward full time. If thats the case maybe something with longer reach would be better (seems counterintuitive), I need to demo something with around ~460mm reach to find out for sure.

The longer the stem the more I have to shift my weight forward out of my neutral position to weight the front in downhill corners. The shorter the stem the less I have to shift. Slackening the front end with an angle set let me run a longer stem - I think whats going on there is it's increasing the front-center which makes me more comfortable keeping my COG farther forward full time. If thats the case maybe something with longer reach would be better (seems counterintuitive), I need to demo something with around ~460mm reach to find out for sure.

You should try a bike with longer reach, at 179cm you definitively qualify for a large Troy.

What I found with longer/roomier bikes is that they are less picky with body positioning. With shorter bikes I always have problems finding the right balance between too much weight on the front so that you loose traction at the rear and too much weight on the rear so that you loose traction at the front... I found longer bikes more forgiving, you don't have to be at the exact golden spot to keep traction on both wheels, being "near" the golden spot is enough.

Something else I realise with the longer stem and the more forward position is that my cornering was much better. I have been riding "from the rear", I don't know how to say it in proper English, but before I had very little weight on my handlebars, kind of keeping my COM above or even behind the BB. Now with more weight on the bars I can push in the corners, like pumping them. For sure you have to trust the grip of the front wheel and even if counterintuitive at first it has been a real eye opener. Another advantage of the more forward position is that you have more accessible range of mouvement from your arms and shoulders to adjust your steering, lift your wheel over stuff and whatever needs to be done with a handlebar.

 

[djjohnr]

You should try a bike with longer reach, at 179cm you definitively qualify for a large Troy.

What I found with longer/roomier bikes is that they are less picky with body positioning. With shorter bikes I always have problems finding the right balance between too much weight on the front so that you loose traction at the rear and too much weight on the rear so that you loose traction at the front... I found longer bikes more forgiving, you don't have to be at the exact golden spot to keep traction on both wheels, being "near" the golden spot is enough.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm running in to. The funny thing is I never had that issue on bikes with 400mm reach/440mm chainstays, and even my trail bike last year with 430 reach/440 CS didn't have that issue. My buddy just got a large Troy last week, I'm going try that out and see if it's an improvement.

 

[Happymtb.fr]

The funny thing is I never had that issue on bikes with 400mm reach/440mm chainstays, and even my trail bike last year with 430 reach/440 CS didn't have that issue.

That's quite understandable, with longer chainstays and shorter reach you get automatically more weight on the front wheel given the same "neutral" position.

Let us know what you think of the large Troy. You might need to try it a few times depending on how fast you can change your habits. As mentioned before, shifting forward and pushing the handlebar in turns was counterintuitive for me and I still do need to actively remind me of doing it sometimes.

 

[djjohnr]

This may be of interest if you geek out on geometry/body positioning. Since my posts above I went back to the drawing board on my body and lever positioning. A couple of years ago I changed my body position based on a combination of coaching and tips picked up in the Fluidride video - less bend at the knee and more at the hips, elbows lower and flatter, and overall moved my COG farther forward. I wound up rotating my brake levers up quite a bit - much closer to parallel with the ground. The changes to arm/elbow and lever position drastically decreased arm pump, the lower body changes decreased fatigue, improved berm exit speed energy off jumps. Since I've been having issues with weight the front wheel on newer bikes I partially went back to my old arm position - elbows farther up, more weight on the bar and levers rotated downward; the result is I can easily weight the front again without feeling like I'm going to take a trip OTB and run a longer stem to give me more room, but I've lost the energy savings in my upper body. Basically it seems the elbows low/weight off the hands approach puts you in a better position to absorb/react to terrain but requires more space to pull off.