That's like last week on the fox news forum where they said I should have used a "sarcastic" emoji so people wouldn't think I was serious about being injected with the microchips from the flu vaccine that were controlled by 5G to make me vote for Biden....
Long bikes are... bad???
- Thread starter norbar
- Start date
I have to apologize, I am still sick and miserable.
my sense of humor right now is about as funny as a canchre sore.
Don’t get this thing, people.
my sense of humor right now is about as funny as a canchre sore.
Don’t get this thing, people.
Yeah mate. My sense of smell is still a bit weird 6 months on and I get what my GF and I refer to as "the smell of covid". it's a sort of natural damp wood, fungal smell. not unpleasant but... Well... Every time I get it I'm like OH FFS when will this end. I tend to get that more when i'm fatigued/tired.
My sense of taste didn't ever go completely. it was just kinda muted for a short time. My GF lost her sense of taste and smell completely for something like 4 weeks.
Message me if you want to pick my brain (or what's left of it
)
My sense of taste didn't ever go completely. it was just kinda muted for a short time. My GF lost her sense of taste and smell completely for something like 4 weeks.
Message me if you want to pick my brain (or what's left of it
)
Yup, I haven’t lost the sense of smell yet, but I have the ‘smell of Covid’. It’s like the smell of a bad flu. Can your GF smell it on you? Wifey lost sense of smell, but can still taste. It’s all so weird.
did you both wear masks?
Hunh?
always, everywhere.
But other people sometimes didn’t.
We think Wifey got it from being in a penalty box with kiddo hockey players.
always, everywhere.
But other people sometimes didn’t.
We think Wifey got it from being in a penalty box with kiddo hockey players.
No. There is no actual smell. I've asked others if they can smell anything on me. It's more like a messed up sensory thing where I can smell it. but it's not actually there. kinda trippy.
You mean me and my GF?
No. Not before contracting the virus. But that was back in March. Before guidelines here even recommended we should wear masks. She contracted it from a work mate she worked in close proximity to. I caught it from her. My symptoms at the beginning were following a similar patern but around maybe 4 days after hers.(we don't actually live together, but spend 4 nights a week together)
We both wear masks now. Anytime we we enter a public place, shopping etc. I live rurally, commute to the city by bike and don't directly deal with the public at close range. So I always have a mask with me. but don't need to wear it all that much at all.
The rules are all over the place here. eg. you MUST wear a face covering in any shop, public transport etc. there are strict rules on how many people can enter your house but folk can sit in cafes/restaurants at tables in a group (2 households per table) with no face covering. Schools and Universities are open. Primary kids (5-12yrs) do not have to wear masks in School.
Scottish regions are graded locally by a protection level 0-4 based on infection rates and restrictions are set dependent on the level given .
Even though I live rurally (just 6 houses within half a mile radius) my region is level 3 (quite high). If you're interested, here's out rules for protection level 3
Search Results
www.gov.scot
Last edited:
Yeah. the whole thing can be weird. stressful and scary. at times you feel you're losing your mind.
I don’t think I conveyed adequately how scared I was Saturday night when my lungs were starting to fill with fluid.
it was a wee bit terrifying.
it was a wee bit terrifying.
Sooooo.... now that everybody is healthy again... and it's new bike buying season, I'm going to revive this thread.
I have a buddy who's looking to buy a new bike. But it's hard to sit on a bike these days. His current bike is a 2011 size small 26" Giant (Trance or Reign or something). He's approx 5'6.5 (172cm). He's looking at bikes with reaches that vary between 435 and 460. My current bike (a 2016 Transition Patrol) has a reach of 432. I'm 175cm (5'9). My assumption is he should be looking at reach numbers no longer than 435.
Then I just saw this video:
and it seems to make a lot of sense to me. The distance between your feet and your hands should be the most important measurement, and you want your bars to be at palm (knuckle) height when you are standing tall in a neutral position with the bike rotated underneath you (as though you are about to explode up in a bunny hop - like when he's on the step ladders in the video). They call it the R.A.D measurement...
Any thoughts on the validity of that measurement? Seems to be focused on maximizing mobility and generating power, and that makes sense to me...
I have a buddy who's looking to buy a new bike. But it's hard to sit on a bike these days. His current bike is a 2011 size small 26" Giant (Trance or Reign or something). He's approx 5'6.5 (172cm). He's looking at bikes with reaches that vary between 435 and 460. My current bike (a 2016 Transition Patrol) has a reach of 432. I'm 175cm (5'9). My assumption is he should be looking at reach numbers no longer than 435.
Then I just saw this video:
Any thoughts on the validity of that measurement? Seems to be focused on maximizing mobility and generating power, and that makes sense to me...
I think the LLB stuff is all bullshit and won't get into that, but having messed around with different reach settings from 440-450 for myself at 5'8", and my buddy recently choosing a size small Yeti SB165 (with 435mm reach) at 5'6", I think he should try riding stuff in the 430-440 range and see what feels good. Your Patrol would be a good starting reference point for him (but it will feel a bit stretched out climbing due to the older, slacker ST angle and longer ETT).
Don't forget that you can affect reach with stem length/height, plus having correctly sized bars will make a big difference too.
Unfortunately, most demo bikes are going to have 800mm bars on them, which is way too wide for him at 5'6".
Don't forget that you can affect reach with stem length/height, plus having correctly sized bars will make a big difference too.
Unfortunately, most demo bikes are going to have 800mm bars on them, which is way too wide for him at 5'6".
Thanks. Can you clarify LLB?
I think it refers to the Leelikesbikes in the video.
I'm 6'2" and still ride an XL trail bike with 455 reach.
Saw this video too and also interested in what you guys think of the RAD measurement.
@slyfink I'm about the same height as your buddy and my medium hardtail has a 430 mm reach, 65 ha/73 sta with a 40 mm stem and 750 mm or so handlebars and I don't think I want to go longer than that at least when I'm sitting and pedalling. I got to pedal a size large 2018 (I think) Transition Sentinel and the latest XL Nukeproof Mega around and thought they fit fine. Probably due to the steeper seat angles on those bikes? I had very little time on those bikes though.
@slyfink I'm about the same height as your buddy and my medium hardtail has a 430 mm reach, 65 ha/73 sta with a 40 mm stem and 750 mm or so handlebars and I don't think I want to go longer than that at least when I'm sitting and pedalling. I got to pedal a size large 2018 (I think) Transition Sentinel and the latest XL Nukeproof Mega around and thought they fit fine. Probably due to the steeper seat angles on those bikes? I had very little time on those bikes though.
Last edited:
ah yes. understood now. While I agree that the guy is a bit of a number, it doesn't automatically mean he's wrong on this one. I was going to add a disclaimer about this being his idea in my original post! probably shoulda. it's kinda why I sought a second opinion here. He spews a lot of BS, but I wonder if there is a nugget of truth in there.
I agree that there is so much that can be done to affect hand to foot measurement. cleat position, crank length, stem rise and length, bar width and roll - which make it kind of impossible to measure consistently.
But when he was standing on those footstools with the bike dangling below him, that position seemed to make so much sense as a gauge of bike fit. Caus' if you can't explode up from there, you can't bunny hop, manual, do technical climbs, or even jump naturally.
My suspicion is that reach is a good measurement that can get you in a ballpark, and then you can play with all the other factors (stem, bar, cranks etc) to get you to that foot to hand measurement.
Their "RAD" measurement puts me on 470 reach, with 460 low end, 480 high.
Likely sufficiently close to put me on a bike that works - but I have zero experience on newer trail bikes. Although my hardtail fatty is 475mm and works fine.
It depends on what your buddy is looking for out of a new bike? and perhaps his riding style, etc.
There's a newbie in my area riding a medium Hightower and he's like 5'5"~5'6". He seems to be happy enough with it, though like most new riders, he rides like a passenger rather than a pilot, and though I don't know this individual well, I'd venture to guess he doesn't have enough points of reference to form any opinion that are useful for experienced riders.
OTOH, I'm content with my large Nomad V3 at 5'10". I try to (very poorly) imitate likes of Shawn Neer and BikerBrayd. I'm not particularly concerned about speed, strava PRs, etc, and I'm not strong/fit enough to man-handle a long bike for the duration of my typical ride (2 hours), riding the way I want to - bunnyhopping, gapping, manualing, etc.
I have no comment on the validity of R.A.D. measurement. My R.A.D. gets skewed quite a bit due to my long arms (+4" ape index). That said, for my riding style, the frame size based on R.A.D number suits better than what majority of bike manufacturers suggest these days.
I wished I had a longer bike on a couple of occasions, when I tried to follow younger guys down steep/loose/rutted trails at bike parks. But I don't mind getting dropped by guys half my age any more, so I just slow down in those instances.
There's a newbie in my area riding a medium Hightower and he's like 5'5"~5'6". He seems to be happy enough with it, though like most new riders, he rides like a passenger rather than a pilot, and though I don't know this individual well, I'd venture to guess he doesn't have enough points of reference to form any opinion that are useful for experienced riders.
OTOH, I'm content with my large Nomad V3 at 5'10". I try to (very poorly) imitate likes of Shawn Neer and BikerBrayd. I'm not particularly concerned about speed, strava PRs, etc, and I'm not strong/fit enough to man-handle a long bike for the duration of my typical ride (2 hours), riding the way I want to - bunnyhopping, gapping, manualing, etc.
I have no comment on the validity of R.A.D. measurement. My R.A.D. gets skewed quite a bit due to my long arms (+4" ape index). That said, for my riding style, the frame size based on R.A.D number suits better than what majority of bike manufacturers suggest these days.
I wished I had a longer bike on a couple of occasions, when I tried to follow younger guys down steep/loose/rutted trails at bike parks. But I don't mind getting dropped by guys half my age any more, so I just slow down in those instances.
My opinion - there's way too many variables at play that determine how your body interacts with a bike to simplify it down to reach, or any other single factor.
Last edited:
Obviously intended use, riding style and preferences, and local trail terrain are key to choosing a bike, including sizing.
At 5'6" your buddy most likely is a Small, as always. He'll probably be able to ride many modern mediums due to the ever-decreasing ST lengths, but sizing up will have other drawbacks: less pop, playfulness, slower/harder to corner.
At 5'6" your buddy most likely is a Small, as always. He'll probably be able to ride many modern mediums due to the ever-decreasing ST lengths, but sizing up will have other drawbacks: less pop, playfulness, slower/harder to corner.
Yes.
That's because of the relationship between seat angle, effective top tube, and reach. Steep seat angle lets you get more reach on a bike that feels the same when seated (has a similar ETT number). There's also big differences between hardtail and full suspension numbers in relation to how they actually feel, but that's a separate issue.
Agreed. When I consider bikes, I start with ETT, which I know is kind of blasphemous in some corners of the internet. That lets me know in general how comfortable it's going to feel while pedaling, which is where I spend the majority of my time on the bike. Then I move onto other numbers to get a sense for how it's going to feel handling... reach, head angle, BB height, chainstay length. Then I ride the damn thing if possible, or at the very least ride something with similar geometry. It's pretty nerdy, but I actually keep a spreadsheet with the geometry of every bike I've owned, so when I start looking at numbers on a new bike, I can see which older bike a certain measurement most closely matches, and think about how that bike felt.
I have a similar spreadsheet. I've tried finding variables over the years that will help me predict how a bike will handle, none have worked repeatably over the longer term - TT length, downtube length, reach, stack, reach normalized to a given stack height, wheelbase, wheelbase/chainstay length, bottom of headtube based reach...blah. Every time geometry changes appreciably, my riding stance changes to match it after a bit, and everything previous is tossed out the window.
Funny how adaptable we are in this regard. I remember going from BMX to 90s xc MTB... couldn't do anything on it for a while, but before you knew it, I was bunny hopping and doing kickouts just the same. Getting back on the BMX now felt strange.
Good i won't look like a circus bear riding a bike anymore...lol
This is sort of what I think. Especially since some of the better bikes in this category are now 29" only (Transition Sentinel, Norco Sight, Commençal Meta TR). He values playfulness and pop over outright speed and pop.
My working theory is that to maximise maneouverability, playfulness and pop, size down on a 29r and up on a 27.5. Unfortunately, I don't have a stable of bikes to test out my theory...
Interesting- I haven't heard somebody consider eTT in a long time.
For me when choosing a new frame, I like to think about what I don't like about my current bike, then consider what bikes match up with those changes intact. I don't need a lower BB out here on the east coast...head tube could be slacker but it's not an issue...I'd like a longer reach but not by much. So, I go searching for a bike that has similar bb drop, chainstay, then is a smidge slacker and longer and finally wasn't designed by retards and I'm good to go. I try not to go changing things that I'm happy with.
I'm 5'10" with a 0 ape index on a Bronson V3, buddy convinced me to go for a large even though I've been a medium guy for as long as I can recall. It's a 459 reach but I have to run a 31mm stem and the seat all the way forward on the rails to not feel waaay too stretched out, and even then I would say it took me almost a season to feel comfortable on it. If I did it again I'd go medium and then I could run a 40mm stem to help keep the front end from wandering. If the seat tube angle was slightly more upright I could probably get away with it better. It's not terrible by any stretch, but I do like maneuverability in tight trails and feel like I gave up a lot of that. but, everyone's different and rides/likes different types of trails and has variations in their body proportions that they need to account for.
5'10" with a +3" ape index. My large V3 Bronson felt good with a 50mm stem, but still felt a little cramped. Now on a GG Smash at ~480mm w/ 40mm stem.
Seeing as two folk of the exact same height can have very different shoulder widths ape index counts for very little in terms of bike fit.
Not to mention flexibility and gut size making a massive difference to comfort on slightly longer reach bikes.
But...
Not to mention flexibility and gut size making a massive difference to comfort on slightly longer reach bikes.
But...
But...
I finally went back and watched this video and I have some questions and comments....
Comment- Finding an "ideal" RAD according to LLB really depends on what you want to do on your bike. I feel like many bikes got longer specifically to make the bike handle slower and more controllably. While you can still take advantage of slacker head angles and stuff, you really can't balance huge front ends that allow you to blast through rough terrain with explosive, BMX-like power....you have to choose. Stability, or mobility?
Question- why would you be able to generate max power with arms locked and not with arms flexed, which is how they measure "RAD"? The physics says that you'll generate the most amount of power with the shortest lever arm, which means a 2" reach is going to give you the best ability to pull up...but then you're on a clown bike. There must be some ratio between long lever arm giving a physical advantage and short reach for max power.
Anyways, I think there's merit to having shorter reaches on bikes, but it all depends on what you want to do with it. Somebody like richie rude can probably manhandle a shorter frame with all the control he needs in rough terrain, but maybe Reggie the orthodontist needs a longer RAD to go as fast without crashing. Riding isn't all about BMX moves... Also, isn't much of this what @Udi was railing on back in the day when DH BB heights finally got low? He found he needed to drop his stem in order to keep his hand-foot distance the same. A 2" BB drop needed a 2" lower handlebar height.
So... Mr. Bogusky (the other guy in the vid) rides a BMX bike, and he rides rather well especially for an older individual. And like many proficient BMX riders turned MTBers, he seems to enjoy incorporating BMX moves into his trail riding.
Given his riding style, I can see why he hated the large YT he tried briefly, and while I agree that MTB riding isn't all about BMX moves, it's another way of having fun riding as simple bunnyhop/bump hop skills open up a whole lot more line choices even on mundane Green trails.
Personally I think this R.A.D. measurement is kinda irrelevant unless you are into that kind of stuff. Reggie the orthodontist would probably feel more confident (therefore ride better/faster = more fun) on a longer bike that reduces the feeling of going OTB.
My highly uneducated guess is that you can engage lats Edit: and other muscles more effectively with arms extended out when pulling the handlebar towards your hip/thighs (only relevant when you want to hop up on something like a picnic table or boost the sheet out of a jump)
Here's a screenshot of BikerBrayd doing his thing - trying to mimic this, I feel tensions in triceps, pecs and lats
Last edited:
IMO - The biggest predictor of how a bike is going to ride on-trail is the wheelbase. Longer = more stable but larger turn radius and therefore requires more input to turn quickly.
I would advocate for Slyfink's buddy to not worry about getting the perfect bike on paper, and more work to avoid getting a bike that is flat-out wrong (ie too much seat tube length, too steep/slack, too much/little travel, etc).
All the other stuff is about adjusting the bike to fit... with the actual time on the bike. Ie. worrying about 5-10mm of reach or a degree of seat tube angle is silly.
- move your saddle around (up-down and fore-aft) - you can find 15-20mm of adjustment in each direction, and 3deg or more of ST angle here.
- play with headset spacers combined with bar rise. a 35mm rise bar w/ no spacers gives about 6mm more reach vs. a 20mm rise bar with 15mm of spacers.
- roll your bars forward/back a bit to get the right wrist position, but also can find a few mm of reach easily.
- swap stems. this is a changeable thing! One can easily go between 32 to 60mm, at almost every increment between, very inexpensively, and further adjust bar height with +/0/- stem angles.
- play with sag +/- a few percent in both the fork and shock. Most often when I encounter fit issues on FS bikes, they actually have undersprung rear shocks.
So my point is, avoid buying the wrong bike, select the bike you like, from the brand you trust and want to support because they do things the right way. Then adjust the bike correctly once it arrives.
Last edited:
No shit?
Bike geometry and sizing has always meant a compromise in handling one way or another and at the end of the day it should come down to personal preference and experience. Not some ageing skills coach coming up with a new bike sizing formula. "RAD" just says to me Lee has spent far too much time thinking about and promoting his stupid Riprow homemade gym apparatus and is doing everything in his power to justify it's existance. The dude's even gone as far as trying to re-name basic weight shift movements to fit in with his product. "row!" and "anti-row" Fuck off Bro.
Somehow somewhere along the way he seems to also have managed to admit he's short so it stands to reason he's going to prefer shorter bikes init? I could be wrong here but he really doesn't strike me as the sort of guy to have ever gone pro-DHer fast over gnarly WC DH terrain.
There's litterally a BMX track behind this stupid cunt.
I'll be the contrarian. The fundamentals of what Lee is talking about make sense to me. The feet to hands measurement on your bike probably should relate to how human beings are most effective at generating power. Seemed pretty well explained in that video. There are allowances within his approach for going up or down in size depending on your priority and differences in body shape. But as a starting point? Makes sense to me.
Row and anti-row are a simple, effective, way of teaching the basic movements that are necessary for about 98% of good riding. It's certainly a more useful construct than most of what I hear coaches/riding instructors using as cues ("do a manual off a drop"). Call it what you want, seems to be working for him in his coaching.
And yeah, the guy came out with a silly looking exercise device. Looks like the most bike-specific training that you can do to me (pedaling being a different thing)...and that's evidently a bad thing. I'm not buying one and I gather that most on here aren't either. But some people have and seem to find it useful.
But I know, this is a tough crowd which leans toward cynicism and he's a goofy old skills coach. So here we are.
Row and anti-row are a simple, effective, way of teaching the basic movements that are necessary for about 98% of good riding. It's certainly a more useful construct than most of what I hear coaches/riding instructors using as cues ("do a manual off a drop"). Call it what you want, seems to be working for him in his coaching.
And yeah, the guy came out with a silly looking exercise device. Looks like the most bike-specific training that you can do to me (pedaling being a different thing)...and that's evidently a bad thing. I'm not buying one and I gather that most on here aren't either. But some people have and seem to find it useful.
But I know, this is a tough crowd which leans toward cynicism and he's a goofy old skills coach. So here we are.