Quantcast

Just how long is your....

Sandwich

Pig my fish!
Staff member
May 23, 2002
15,829
937
01776
reach?

Potentially found a crack in the headtube of my current frame. Was shopping for some new ones and discovered holy fucking shit, reach has increased significantly in recent years. I'm on a 435mm frame and quite happy- it's a good balance for the technical trails out here where top speeds never hit mach chicken. GG wants me on a 483mm bike, but I'd probably choose a size 2L, which is still 468mm and a little uncomfortable for me when I tested something similar in a shop. So what gives?

How tall are you and what reach bike do you ride?

5'11" and 435mm here
 

Udi

RM Chief Ornithologist: “I Brake for Birds”
Mar 14, 2005
4,717
796
Make sure you consider the stack too, the reach alone won't define the fit.
I usually compare the WB and CS also, they have more impact on how the bike rides/feels downhill.

Bikes have gotten longer (not right for everyone), you know what you need for your own height and trails - my take is to not stray from those numbers much. I ignore the size "names" entirely and compare the numbers.

The minimum corner radius on the trails you ride is relevant - my trailbike is a size down from what fits me (my DH bike) because the WB on the correct one is too high to be enjoyable on my tighter local trails.
 

SkaredShtles

I love NEWCASTLE and will ONLY drink NEWCASTLE!!!!
Sep 21, 2003
47,739
2,333
In a van.... down by the river
reach?

Potentially found a crack in the headtube of my current frame. Was shopping for some new ones and discovered holy fucking shit, reach has increased significantly in recent years. I'm on a 435mm frame and quite happy- it's a good balance for the technical trails out here where top speeds never hit mach chicken. GG wants me on a 483mm bike, but I'd probably choose a size 2L, which is still 468mm and a little uncomfortable for me when I tested something similar in a shop. So what gives?

How tall are you and what reach bike do you ride?

5'11" and 435mm here
6'1" and 448mm
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
25,813
1,636
5’ 8”. Wingspan about 5’ 10” iirc and long torso. I’m on a 445 mm reach bike and would like it to be longer yet.
 

mykel

Turbo Monkey
Apr 19, 2013
1,898
538
sw ontario canada
I'm old and shrinking.

6'1" Ape Index of +1.5

150/135mm
HA 65.25
SA 75.25
Chainstay 430.5mm
616.5mm stack
477 mm reach
40mm stem
780mm width, 8 degree sweep bars
 
Last edited:

imbecile

Chimp
Sep 9, 2008
51
27
Bulgaria
5’ 8”, 475mm. on paper, size ML, this frame. I must say initially (end of last season, beginning of current) I felt the difference from previous frame (425mm.) mainly on the climbs, i.e. felt more stretched. Then again the extreme parts of the season are not the best to jump ship and usually distort the perception of a new frame fit. Now that I'm pretty much in best shape I feel the climbing position really natural, but the best part is the descending - I had a lot of issues with the weight balance/shift previously, I usually found my COG way too forward on steeper trails and struggled controlling and efficiently weighting he front end. Now I have a lot more room to play with and feel much more in control with the front, more of a driver than a passenger. In terms of wheelbase, trails featuring tight switchbacks are being avoided so I wouldn't say it's an issue. Nevertheless when I encounter such trail features they're very manageable, again the room available helps a lot to balance through the turn.
 

djjohnr

Turbo Monkey
Apr 21, 2002
1,846
468
Northern California
5'10"

Clash - 467 reach, 612 stack w/ 40mm stem
Bronson - 455 reach, 614 stack w/ 50mm stem

The key is feeling centered on the bike; if the backend feels proportionately too long or short to the point where I'm having to exaggerate weight shifts to keep the front or back wheel weighted then a longer reach becomes a hinderance.
 
Last edited:

rpet

Turbo Monkey
Jun 9, 2003
2,903
267
El Lay
IMO you should try 20mm more reach or so, but superextrawestcoasthighspeedreach may not be what you need unless your goal is to always skid the wrong direction before a corner like Pinkbike enduro edits and 50to01. 5’8” guys are on XLs all over the Pinkbike forums.

I’m 6’ on a Large Capra - 460mm reach. I guess I feel centered, but I also am lanky and not heavy, so moving my body around has always been part of my riding style. I also ride off the back naturally, as I would guess most people my height who began riding on hard tails down steep shit 30 years ago do. Wide bars help with moving that COG where it needs to be. APE +1.125
Stems should be 30-45mm no matter what IMO.

I’d like to test more reach maybe but I don’t want any longer WB.

In my opinion bikes are getting too long for slow speed tech descents on non-optimal trails such as blown out, undesigned hiking trails, which is what I ride mostly at my locals. :drag: 3 Point Turn switchbacks are bumming me out.

Bikes are sooo fucking long now.
 
Last edited:

Sandwich

Pig my fish!
Staff member
May 23, 2002
15,829
937
01776
There is definitely a crack behind the head tube, I just don't know if it's structural or just in the top coat. I am hoping it doesn't need replacement, but I also don't need to be worrying about my frame every ride
 

sundaydoug

Monkey
Jun 8, 2009
368
58
Somewhere between 5'5" and 5'6" with a 439mm reach. It's definitely on the long side for me and my local trails, but perfect for the bike park. My sizing options for this bike were to go with a small size and have a shorter TT length than my previous bike, or go with this medium and risk being a little long.
 

Kiwintas

Chimp
Oct 22, 2018
72
42
One thing to think about is how steep the seat tube is.
A steeper seat tube tends to move closer to the bars and because of this you may need a frame with a longer reach to get the same distance between your seat and your handle bars.
A mate brought a new bike, mail order off the reach number. Turned out to be to short for him. It had the same reach as his old bike but the seat angle was far steeper than his old bike.
 

Katz

Monkey
Jun 8, 2012
157
261
Arizona
... but superextrawestcoasthighspeedreach may not be what you need unless your goal is to always skid the wrong direction before a corner like Pinkbike enduro edits and 50to01..
Agreed, riding style is a major factor choosing the bike geometry. Speaking of 50to01, there was Josh Lewis bike check on Vital a while ago. He's 5'9" and on a medium 5010 (420mm reach).

Longer WB/reach if you like pointing the front tire in general direction and moster-truck everything. Shorter if you prefer to have fun popping off side features.

I'm perfectly happy with my size L Nomad V3 at 5'10", though I'm keen on trying a bike with slightly longer reach but little bit steeper head angle (to keep the WB same-ish).
 

marshalolson

Turbo Monkey
May 25, 2006
1,439
73
6’2’’

4yrs ago-445mm reach
3yrs ago-457mm reach
2 past seasons-465mm reach
This season-490mm reach and love it.
 

Cerberus75

Monkey
Feb 18, 2017
199
37
I'm 5'6" just went from 419mm to 438mm (I upsized to a Med) I liked the extra room on bikes I demoed with more reach. But they felt too long for my trails. So I got a medium Canfield Riot and put a 42° CSU on my fork so it's still a short wheel based bike for its type.
 

Kiwintas

Chimp
Oct 22, 2018
72
42
460 on the patrol,
485 on the thunderbolt.
I’m 6’ and used to ride small frames as they felt like BMXs.
Prefer the the longer reach of the thunderbolt. Even on the techy single walking tracks that I ride.
 

jstuhlman

We noticed.
Dec 3, 2009
9,156
3,985
Cackalacka du Nord
460mm on my Nomad4 size L.
I'm between 6' and 6'1"...maybe a touch ape-y.
I run a 40mm stem.
definitely feel "on top" of the bike when the post is up up for pedaling...sometimes shift my weight back a touch. But definitely less so than I did on my old Uzzi.
 

SuboptimusPrime

Turbo Monkey
Aug 18, 2005
1,349
886
NorCack
6'2 not super ape-y. Spent the last 3 seasons on a 475mm GG bike. Just got a 2019 GG which is 493mm. With the steeper seat angle of the new bike, it feels the same as my old ones in the size department. In general I've felt like the longer bikes have been a revelation in terms of comfort nevermind benefits when going fast. I see both sides tho--my hardtail is much shorter and is 26 and holy hell is it quick around corners. Turns out both long and short bikes are fun just in different ways.
 

hmcleay

i-track suspension
Apr 28, 2008
116
102
Adelaide, Australia
I'm 175cm tall and regularly switch between a M (445mm reach) and L (465mm reach). Both are the same bike (Craftworks ENR) with same 50mm stem and cockpit. Both have 601mm stack.
After a bit of back-to-back riding, I think I'm more comfortable on the M, but sometimes the L feels pretty fast and fun too.
 

slimshady

¡Mira, una ardilla!
Dec 20, 2007
2,553
653
La Plata, Argentina
183 cm in Universal Units™, 467 mm reach, 624 mm stack, 420 mm chainstays, 1204 mm WB, 160 mm travel for/aft. Ape index 1, would like to go longer on the reach and WB department after demoing a Mondraker Dune. 75° SA makes the reach feel shorter, as mentioned before.

EDIT: 35 mm length stem.
 
Last edited:

scrublover

Monkey
Sep 1, 2004
925
1,074
5'8"

Med trail bike is 455mm with 60mm stem.

Large enderpo bike is 467mm with 40mm stem.

Similar seat angles, same 785mm bars.

Stuck with the smaller sized trail bike as daily driver for my local riding with lots of slow speed tight twisty tech bits. It's still much longer reach and WB than my prior bikes, but in no way feels too long/unwieldy. Doesn't feel cramped either. The next size up IMO was going to be too much WB, though I'd not mind the reach.
 

Sandwich

Pig my fish!
Staff member
May 23, 2002
15,829
937
01776
I suppose I should ask for stem length as well. I think my next bike could be 460, but pretty soon I'll have to switch to a 35mm stem, and I'm not ready for that yet- at least not out where where the turns are sharp and the speeds are low (and the trailbuilding sucks dick).

Thank you for all the replies...it's super interesting.
 

rpet

Turbo Monkey
Jun 9, 2003
2,903
267
El Lay
A steeper seat angle does not change how the bike fits and rides when you are standing up (aka descending). Unless you want to quibble about steering with your knee on the side of the saddle.

Feeling comfortable or cramped during seated climbing and feeling comfortable or cramped on a descent are different things.

Sorry for being Captain Obvious.
 
Last edited:

Sandwich

Pig my fish!
Staff member
May 23, 2002
15,829
937
01776
Make sure you consider the stack too, the reach alone won't define the fit.
I usually compare the WB and CS also, they have more impact on how the bike rides/feels downhill.

Bikes have gotten longer (not right for everyone), you know what you need for your own height and trails - my take is to not stray from those numbers much. I ignore the size "names" entirely and compare the numbers.

The minimum corner radius on the trails you ride is relevant - my trailbike is a size down from what fits me (my DH bike) because the WB on the correct one is too high to be enjoyable on my tighter local trails.
Stack height is an interesting consideration. On my BMC the stack height is relatively low. Zero stack headset with a 95mm headtube keeps things tight....but it squares up well with say the Forbidden druid, which puts my BMC (435, 615) in between a S (425/606) and M (445, 620) frame. Not sure what that means, just that it's a smaller bike. The horizontal TT is shorter on the Druid, which is probably a factor of seat angle being so steep. Interesting.
 

Olly

Chimp
Oct 1, 2015
97
34
I'm 180cm/5'11" and my large Suppressor claims to have a 457mm reach and 602mm stack. It was designed around a 50mm stem - I use a 40mm stem and a 30mm rise bar, which shortens reach a bit I think?

Can I be the first to say "go test ride a fuckload of bikes, even if only to see which numbers fit you best"?
 

Sandwich

Pig my fish!
Staff member
May 23, 2002
15,829
937
01776
Can I be the first to say "go test ride a fuckload of bikes, even if only to see which numbers fit you best"?
yeah lemme just pop down to my LBS and hop on a troll pistol or a druid...but I get your point. I did sit on the large version of my current bike in a shop, and it felt waaaaaaay too effing long. I love long bikes, but the trails out here are narrow and goofy, not fast and hucky.
 

rideit

Bob the Builder
Aug 24, 2004
7,025
1,715
In the cleavage of the Tetons
A steeper seat angle does not change how the bike fits and rides when you are standing up (aka descending). Unless you want to quibble about steering with your knee on the side of the saddle.

Feeling comfortable or cramped during seated climbing and feeling comfortable or cramped on a descent are different things.

Sorry for being Captain Obvious.
Exactly. That’s my beef, how much harder it is for me to wheelie drop with the long bikes.
And yes, that is proof that I kinda suck.
 

ChrisRobin

Turbo Monkey
Jan 30, 2002
2,996
55
Vancouver
5'10.5" to be exact with 33-34 inseam.

-435mm reach, Large Carbine 29.
-50mm stem and 800m bars.

Comfy for general trail riding but the slack 72deg seattube kills me on the climbs.

Speaking of seat tube angle reducing overall cockpit length, I've been trying to figure out how much a steeper seat angle would affect cockpit space even with a longer reach.

Example, Orbea Rallon: 76 seat tube and only 455 reach. Unless I've missed something, the Orbea's cockpit would essentially be the same length as my C29. I don't know how I feel about that.
 
Last edited:

6thElement

Schrodinger's Immigrant
Jul 29, 2008
4,109
1,880
5'10.5" to be exact with 33-34 inseam.

-435mm reach, Large Carbine 29.
-50mm stem and 800m bars.

Comfy for general trail riding by the slack 72deg seattube kills me on the climbs.

Speaking of seat tube angle reducing overall cockpit length, I've been trying to figure out how much a steeper seat angle would affect cockpit space even with a longer reach.

Example, Orbea Rallon: 76 seat tube and only 455 reach. Unless I've missed something, the Orbea's cockpit would essentially be the same length as my C29. I don't know how I feel about that.
Probably need to bring ETT length back into your comparisons, rather than just reach.
 

ChrisRobin

Turbo Monkey
Jan 30, 2002
2,996
55
Vancouver
Exactly... the ETT of the C29 is 622.

It's 611 on the Orbea AND the 2018 Spec Enduro 29; only a 10mm difference. So in the end, the overall length will be similar but the climbing position will be better because of the steeper seat angle.