Are new bikes getting smaller?

[Pegleg]

I've ended up with two new bikes this summer - a Large SC Bronson C, which I rode for four months and then sold and replaced with a Large Ibis Ripley. The Bronson always felt a little small, and after my first ride on the Ripley, I realized the cockpit felt small too - I feel very upright and a bit too far forward on the downhills. This is after replacing the stock 70mm stem with a 90mm stem at the bike shop's recommendation. My understanding, though, is that trail bikes these days are designed for shorter stems, and I don't want a new bike where I'm already running a too-long stem and it still feels a little cramped. So, I'm trading the large Ripley back in for an XL (which has to be special ordered, so my fingers are crossed that it's the right decision).

I've always ridden size large frames in the past, yet now all of a sudden I'm apparently an XL. What happened? Do Ripleys and Bronsons run small? I'm 6'0", not a giant by any means - kinda hard to believe I'm on the biggest frame Ibis makes.

Also, I'm sizing up to an XL frame with the reasoning that I can run a shorter stem (70mm instead of 90mm - the XL is 2cm longer on the top tube) and get the same reach, and still have room to move a bit in either direction if necessary without running a stupid long stem. Are there any downsides of going to the XL that I ought to consider (other than the slight weight penalty)?

[garuda]

longer wheelbase for a longer frame will make switchbacks, tight cornering and lofting teh front end a bit harder. 90 is not that long a stem despite all the bros riding 50/70 these days. What about the 90 stem and a setback post? Ultimately you want to feel comfortable so you're the best just of sizing but I tend to agree that an XL frame sounds large at 6' even. I am sure you can make either work though. I think SC and Ibis tend to be a bit shorter in ETT length than some others such as yeti.

[MakersTeleMark]

Obesity attacks, once again.

[WaistDeepGroomers]

You could always get some 950 mm-wide enduro bars and that bike'll feel way less cramped once your chest is doing a spread eagle!

But for real, could be a total jong assumption, but maybe as bikes are getting designed for shorter stems the frame hasn't been brought out longer to match it? I ride a Slayer and it feels way shorter than my Trek Fuel did, way more upright on climbs, but the bike is super flickable and feels like it's right underneath you going down. With so many bikes getting compressed into the do-anything category, I wouldn't be surprised if more manufacturers are shortening up the bikes to make them more fun/capable on the down. TECH TALK, JONG!

[Lev]

Ripley love. Just added one to my stable about 3 weeks ago. Couldn't be much happier with my bike at the moment.

Ibis has sizing charts on their site. They certainly suggest going to the next size up in general. If I were on a Yeti, i'd probably be on a M. On the Ripley at 5'10", the L is the Ibis recommendation.

[Red Smurf 775]

Similar boat as you on the Ibis Ripley since June 2013. I am 6' 2" I stayed with the large frame went with 100 mm stem and set back Thompson seat post (formerly rode a large Mojo sl). Love the bike,totally dialed now. I tried the XL but it added over an inch of wheelbase, hauled ass downhill but was not nearly as responsive or fun to ride. Ibis bikes are known for quick handling and that is the way it should be fit.

Short stems are all the rage for the trail bikes with lots travel. I think ibis intended this bike to be rode as an all day, haul ass cross country bike. I think Hans rides his Ripley with 100mm+ stem as well.

I would also consider CF wheelset they really made that bike come alive for me, worth $$ and I have been riding cheapo chinese made wheels ($600 for wheel set) right out of the box for over a year and they have been fine.

[TahoeJ]

Obesity attacks, once again.

This would actually be the opposite of that. I used to wear large shirts and ride a medium frame. Now I wear medium shirts and ride a large frame. I'm the same size as before.

But I do think shorter stems is part of the equation.

[iscariot]

The body position and body dynamics on newer freeduro/am/trail mountain bikes is way closer to the body position and dynamics of skiing, than it is to road biking or even mountain bikes from 10 years ago.

[creaky fossil]

But for real, could be a total jong assumption, but maybe as bikes are getting designed for shorter stems the frame hasn't been brought out longer to match it?

"designed for shorter stem" = longer TT/ETT/reach, so pretty much NOPE to your question.

"Here's our redesign for current shorter stems: we change nothing in the frame but we reduce the complete bike's stem length, so you will have to Sean Kelly that machine unless you size up." --OR-- "...so you will have to get 900mm wide bars to avoid being Sean Kelly'd."

Think about it: if it's designed for a shorter stem in the same frame size, you'd want to keep the same reach. If you have half a brain. Which some "designers" may not.

[mntlion]

finding the same thing: at 5'10 I'm on a large felt virtue and a 20" moots YBB.

and that is WITH a 70-100mm stem on them.

[Pegleg]

Ibis has sizing charts on their site. They certainly suggest going to the next size up in general. If I were on a Yeti, i'd probably be on a M. On the Ripley at 5'10", the L is the Ibis recommendation.

Link? I was looking for a sizing chart, couldn't find it on their site. Thanks.

EDIT: Never mind, found it in the owner's guide PDF. Looks like at 6' you could either go large or XL. Hope I'm making the right choice with XL, the shop's gonna be pissed if I come back with this one and say it's not the right size. But I think I like the bigger frame/shorter stem combo as far as cockpit feel, so hopefully it doesn't lose too much of the nimble character with a slightly longer wheelbase. My intuition tells me that it felt too short so I'm going with that.

[ready2tumble]

EDIT: Never mind, found it in the owner's guide PDF. Looks like at 6' you could either go large or XL. Hope I'm making the right choice with XL, the shop's gonna be pissed if I come back with this one and say it's not the right size. But I think I like the bigger frame/shorter stem combo as far as cockpit feel, so hopefully it doesn't lose too much of the nimble character with a slightly longer wheelbase. My intuition tells me that it felt too short so I'm going with that.

See Scot Nicol's justification for TT lengths on that bike here:

http://www.bikeradar.com/us/mtb/gear...y-29-13-47481/

Take with whatever sodium dose you deem appropriate.

[jdwcongdb]

couldn't find it on their site.

[markcjr]

couldn't find it on their site.

Read the article in the post above yours.........JONG

[nickwm21]

I am 6'0" and ride an XL bronson. But I actually rode the bike in both sizes before I bought it. I know... crazy thought.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using TGR Forums

[Pegleg]

I am 6'0" and ride an XL bronson. But I actually rode the bike in both sizes before I bought it. I know... crazy thought.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using TGR Forums

Would've liked to, but no one around me stocks the Ibis in XL for demos. And I bought the Bronson in large because it was a sick deal from a friend (just ordered and never ridden, he was swapping out for a Nomad) and large was the only size available - thought that since I'd always ridden large it was a no-brainer. Apparently not.

[Eluder]

It's like always, some companies have smallish bikes some have bigger. Some have 5 sizes, some have 4. I can't fit all makes and models with my preferred cockpit feel. I'm sure others can relate to the why can't they just make one more size feeling.

[grskier]

Would a shorter ETT be indicative of ENDURO?
You need it, it's mad enduro yo.

It's more aggressive, it's just what you need to be more enduro.

[tone capone]

- I feel very upright and a bit too far forward on the downhills.

I'm 6'1" (between sizes) and this is how I felt on my large RM Slayer with a 45 mil. stem when I got it. 75 degree seat angle is great for climbing but results in a short top tube for the size. Just too cramped and too much forward weight bias on the down. I like to be able to get low and contact the saddle a bit at times during long (especially loose) downhills, I never got the memo that all the rad kid's asses never touch the seat on extended downhills I guess. I(blasphemy) sacrificed the dropper post for a one with 2cm of setback and that has been close to a perfect fit. I don't need the dropper anyways for 99% of the riding I like to do. I just want to be comfortable and balanced for extended downhills. I tried a longer stem but it wasn't the fix I was looking for.

[TahoeJ]

Would a shorter ETT be indicative of ENDURO?
You need it, it's mad enduro yo.

It's more aggressive, it's just what you need to be more enduro.

Heh. See this bike? $3000. See this other one? This is for ENDURO!!!! Pretty much the same exact bike, but it costs $4500.

[Dromond]

Some bikes are getting a lot longer to accomodate shorter stems and some aren't. i think the SC bikes are on the short side, although the new Nomad is longer. I quickly tested L and XL Bronsons and thought that they felt pretty short. Then again, I was looking to use a short stem. I'm just under 6' and on an XL SC 5010 with a 40mm stem and quite like it.

[FlimFlamvanHam]

It's all about reach. That number is the most important number when purchasing a new bike.

I would say bikes are getting smaller (in standover) and longer in reach.

Top tube length is a completely irrelevant measurement unless you are working out the effect of that length in relation to the seat tube angle and head tube angle...which in the end relates to the reach = distance from the vertical of bb spindle to vertical of head tube. This is the length that you actually feel.

At 6' and just assuming you're not all disproportionate, an L Bronson will feel about 'average', in my opinion, with the 70mm stem. I know the bike and ride something very similar (@ 5'10" with a 50mm stem) so know it's around a 425mm reach.

The Ripley has a very small reach number. Even the XL has a reach number a mere few mm's more than an L Bronson so it's a pretty small bike.

i would say that for bikes that have a much more descent focus a longer reach is beneficial: shorter stem, longer wheelbase, and this is the trend with many of the 160mm "enduro" style rides. They are getting longer, lower, slacker.

This is where Kona went with the new Process line in '14. Long front centers (reaches) with short stems. It's also what you'll find on new offerings (although not as extreme) like the Trek Slash and Giant Reign for example.

I can say that if one was to say there was a trend with newer bikes it's that the front ends and wheel bases are getting longer on the long travel trail bikes. Maybe everyone now going to <60mm stems is making more commonly sized bikes feel cramped?

[robnow]

Pretty simple really, geometry up to and including 2013 was short. 2014 & 2015 is all about the LOOOONG and LOOOOOW!!

[frorider]

Creaky and Johnny covered it well.

Generally, Reach has increased, but some brands are getting that memo late.

I'm 6'3" and after trying both L and XL, went with the L Bronson. 65 or 70 mm stem. But I don't have a long torso, so YMMV.

[DirkaDirkaJack]

santa cruz and transition have always been really short.

Yeti and Kona are long.

too bad you had to find that out the hard way