27.5" AM/Enduro frames

[kidwoo]

I wasn't going to open my mouth but ^jm2e got the ball rolling with mentioning going to a stem a full inch shorter on a given frame. A frame he thought he needed a 60mm stem on to get it to 'fit'.

People give WAY too much credence to cockpit based measurements. You can pretty much ride a huge range of cockpit measurements that all feel fine. How a bike descends while standing up is going to informed by some other things. WG: what size is your blur?

[grinch]

I'm 5' 10" and have long arms. In rock climber speak, I have a +2 Ape-Index. In other words, my wingspan is 6 feet, or 2" longer than my height.
According to Knolly, I'm right on the fence and leaning toward a medium. I internet asked a bunch of people and got answers on both ends of the spectrum. Noel Buckley said he thought I should be on a medium. In the end, I went with a large Chilcotin anyway because; 1) I found a sweet deal on a used one on Pinkbike, and 2) I'm tired of years of feeling like my size medium bikes were too small and required me to shove the saddle back and use a long stem.
I built it up with a 60mm stem which worked great. Then I got a Kore 35mm stem for like $60 bucks and it was like night and day. Fucking awesome. Everything about the bike felt different. And by different, I mean better.
One thing I feel happens with really slack Knolly seat tube is that for a taller rider the reach gets noticeably longer, and for a shorter rider the reach gets noticeably shorter. Seems to add a good deal of frame size overlap and flexibility. When my 6' buddy got on the bike, he said the geo was perfect for him with just bumping the post up a bit.
So yea, I was between Knolly sizes and went with the bigger one and liked it.

good one. all companies charts just go by height but its best to go with upper body/arm length to lower body/inseam ratio and find that custom fit. I like longer top tubes and short chainstay and plenty of standover. it just gives custom fit to my long torso short inseam. probably more crucial the more exaggerated your measurements are as well as for shorter people

[Whiteroom_Guardian]

My blur is medium.

[kidwoo]

My blur is medium.

I just pulled up both sites. That bike is pretty tiny with a 43.5" wheelbase. Even a small warden is going to be bigger at 44.5. With a slightly slacker headangle and a little more travel that's going to feel like a much bigger ride all around. I'm just a tad taller than you and my last bike was at a 44.5" wheelbase with a 66 degree headangle.....pretty similar to that small warden.

Either size is going to give you more of a monster trucker feeling bike. I think the medium is actually going to be a little big for you to throw around honestly. And you'll still be getting a longer bike with the small. That small with a 50-ish mm stem is going to be very capable and stable. In a lot of places I kind of miss my last bike with those measurements (a medium 5-spot).

[grinch]

I'd think the short cs would keep it nimble and shorter stem for quickness turn to turn, together wth the longer front end for higher speed stability. just a bigger sweet spot with this bike. I found this going from my old rune(small with 17.5" cs) to my V2 rune (med with 16.8"cs) . new one way more stable and at same time ez to throw in the corners and rip over the rear wheel. major improvement. again though, dimensions may and will vary

[kidwoo]

The warden chainstay isn't any shorter than the blur. The difference in length is going to be all front end anyway.

[Whiteroom_Guardian]

I know its not the only factor that matters, but I was thrown off by the fact that the top tube on the small warden is longer than the tt on the medium blur. That was why I initially thought I should go with a small, but then I saw multiple people say that I should go with a medium on mtbr and here.

Kidwoo has me convinced I should go with the small again. Being able to throw the bike around is definitely important to me as well.

[JeffreyJim]

My bike is 48" long. Its very much personal preference IMO.

[grinch]

I was guessing the warden CS would be 17 and blur 17.5. Knolly have had short CS w 26" so I thought the 27.5 would be 17 or under. I sweated this very same decision is why I chimed in.

[kidwoo]

My bike is 48" long..

That's fucking absurd.

How tall are you?

That's longer than an XL V10

[grinch]

I should say for reference as well. I'm 5'7" w 29" inseam. Bikes should measure their CS with recommended sag. Vpp will b closer to 18.5 and knolly 4x4 will be closer to 17.5 in recommended sag

[kidwoo]

Vpp will b closer to 18.5

You mean his blur? There's no way that thing moves backwards an inch and an a half in about the same in travel.

I can probably prove it with a graph when I get home!

[creaky fossil]

My bike is 48" long. Its very much personal preference IMO.

how tall are you? what bike? that's a long WB.

front axles getting further away with slacker HA, at same time front centers growing = bikes are getting stretch limo treatment. I'd rather that happen at the front center rather than the rear center but I guess some people would like the opposite?

I just measured 2 bikes. my 26 bike is about 45.25" with 66.5HA and my 29 bike is about 44.5" with 70HA -- static unsagged. I didn't ride the 29 at all this year but it's never felt more nimble than the 26 despite the shorter WB and steeper HA.

[grinch]

You mean his blur? There's no way that thing moves backwards an inch and an a half in about the same in travel.

I can probably prove it with a graph when I get home!

haa. save the graph please. cs listed is prob 17.5 and prob grows close to an inch when at rec sag. I'm guessing and prob exaggerating but I'd bet its close. my demo is super long and cranks around quick/tight turns well. my 951 w same top tube and ha was a pos in the turns. pos in general except for straight lines. a lot of that can be chaulked up to stupid cs length of vpp bikes that get even longer in rec sag. I liked my old v1 rune but the new v2 is like another sport(xc agility and bike park stability) all entirely because of fit

[kidwoo]

His blur is 16.9-17. A spec demo 8 which has about the biggest fore/aft arc I know of only moves an inch forward with another 3" of travel......and hangs up like a bitch (I owned two of them). Cornering beasts though for sure for both of those reasons.

I know the bikes you're thinking of (I hated them for that reason too) but SC hasn't made those in a long time. His blurlt isn't one of those.

[grinch]

ok I see. looks like both are 16.8 w/o rec sag. prob similar in rec sag with the warden having more travel. nothing against s cruz but I ascribe to fit first and they normally just don't fit me. wardens are beauty. should be easy to decide though. what length stem do you want for the head angle then pick the size by tt length since WG is coming from a bike w the same cs











med no good, should edited cause I'm old and still convert metric to imperial and farked it. SMALL. she be long low and lean

[JeffreyJim]

http://www.vitalmtb.com/product/guid...ign=fb_connect

Truth is its actually 47.9" but I like to round up :-) (that goes with, ahem, everything)

Yup, she's long but it honestly works well. Having ridden the bike back to back with a shorter travel, much more efficient pedaler I can firmly say it is faster.

My perfect bike would be 47-48", 150mm travel, sprightly pedaler, 27lbs.

[grinch]

I think Atherton runs his with 64 ha. would make his wb 48.5

[Whiteroom_Guardian]

Here is my basic understanding at this point.

The small warden has a 5mm longer TT and 40mm lower SO than my medium blur. So, the small warden should fit nicely lengthwise and the lower SO would allow for more bike lean in the corners.

That makes sense to me. I probably need to see some graphs though. [emoji6]

[grinch]

I give I give no graphs please SMALL. SMALL I say

[kidwoo]

I ascribe to fit first

That's kind of why I got into this whole discussion. "fit" as most people think of it is malarkey. There is no one ideal fit for a mountain bike for a given rider. It's not a road bike and doesn't get ridden like one, up or down. There are all kinds of funky positions mtb riders get into you never see on a road bike. Plus just look at the range in cockpit/reach measurements in a given size between manufacturers. It's freaking huge. And they all say they "fit" the same height range of rider. Guys who make a living off this stuff can't even agree on 'fit' when it's based on cockpit dimensions.

When j2me says he moved his hand position a complete inch (something a lot of people have done with stems), does that mean his bike with the longer stem didn't fit? But he got the longer stem specifically because he bought a smaller frame......and then chased around the cockpit length. What improved was the handling....which is what most of us claim to be concerned with. The human body can adapt to a much larger range of cockpit setups than people realize. What you can never adapt is the ratio of your body size to muscling around a given wheelbase which defines your interaction with the ground. That's way more significant to how a bike handles than where the top of the top tube sits.

You can change your weighting over the bike, effectively lengthening or shortening it with all kinds of tools......bar sweep, bar width, bar height.....all even using the same length stem. But you can never change your contact points (wheelbase) that you'll need to make dance around at speed with a given frame size.

But I prioritize descending characteristics quite a bit. Because that's 90% of why I ride bikes. And making a frame 'fit' in the cockpit has a lot more range for interpretation. For someone racing enduro races that should apply I would think. FWIW, I haven't looked at a top tube, reach, stack or 'recommended rider size' for about 8 years when deciding on a bike. And I don't get it wrong either. The only times I've ever sized up or down on a frame I already bought was when I used to buy bikes based on cockpits. That range isn't as fixed and set in stone as everyone wants you to think. That's why I think people should look at wheelbases to see how much of a deviation it's going to be from what they're used to. It's going to tell you a lot about how a frame is going to compare. In this case they're both longer....... One of them a lot longer. Longer than I would want, even being a little taller than him.

It's a different world these days. I used to buy large dh bikes to add stability because the BBs and headangles were wack. With the way things are going, I'll probably be buying a lot of smalls in the future so I can weight the back wheel without being held over the front of the bike so much with these crazy long frames coming out. There's nothing worse than being pulled forward on a frame when you try to yank back out of a turn.

[grinch]

That's kind of why I got into this whole discussion. "fit" as most people think of it is malarkey. There is no one ideal fit for a mountain bike for a given rider. It's not a road bike and doesn't get ridden like one, up or down. There are all kinds of funky positions mtb riders get into you never see on a road bike. Plus just look at the range in cockpit/reach measurements in a given size between manufacturers. It's freaking huge. And they all say they "fit" the same height range of rider. Guys who make a living off this stuff can't even agree on 'fit' when it's based on cockpit dimensions.

When j2me says he moved his hand position a complete inch (something a lot of people have done with stems), does that mean his bike with the longer stem didn't fit? But he got the longer stem specifically because he bought a smaller frame......and then chased around the cockpit length. What improved was the handling....which is what most of us claim to be concerned with. The human body can adapt to a much larger range of cockpit setups than people realize. What you can never adapt is the ratio of your body size to muscling around a given wheelbase which defines your interaction with the ground. That's way more significant to how a bike handles than where the top of the top tube sits.

You can change your weighting over the bike, effectively lengthening or shortening it with all kinds of tools......bar sweep, bar width, bar height.....all even using the same length stem. But you can never change your contact points (wheelbase) that you'll need to make dance around at speed with a given frame size.

But I prioritize descending characteristics quite a bit. Because that's 90% of why I ride bikes. And making a frame 'fit' in the cockpit has a lot more range for interpretation. For someone racing enduro races that should apply I would think. FWIW, I haven't looked at a top tube, reach, stack or 'recommended rider size' for about 8 years when deciding on a bike. And I don't get it wrong either. The only times I've ever sized up or down on a frame I already bought was when I used to buy bikes based on cockpits. That range isn't as fixed and set in stone as everyone wants you to think. That's why I think people should look at wheelbases to see how much of a deviation it's going to be from what they're used to. It's going to tell you a lot about how a frame is going to compare. In this case they're both longer....... One of them a lot longer. Longer than I would want, even being a little taller than him.

It's a different world these days. I used to buy large dh bikes to add stability because the BBs and headangles were wack. With the way things are going, I'll probably be buying a lot of smalls in the future so I can weight the back wheel without being held over the front of the bike so much with these crazy long frames coming out. There's nothing worse than being pulled forward on a frame when you try to yank back out of a turn.

yes all that. too long is too long but it depends where that wheelbase is . more front centre short rear just gives a bigger sweet spot. a touch longer wb/slacker/lower for stability. shorter rearshorter stem for agility. that's why I wasn't just focused on tt or stem length. everything is a factor for the fit in regards to usage and rider dimensions. cockpit is only one factor like wheelbase is only one factor

[creaky fossil]

That's kind of why I got into this whole discussion. "fit" as most people think of it is malarkey. There is no one ideal fit for a mountain bike for a given rider. It's not a road bike and doesn't get ridden like one, up or down. There are all kinds of funky positions mtb riders get into you never see on a road bike. Plus just look at the range in cockpit/reach measurements in a given size between manufacturers. It's freaking huge. And they all say they "fit" the same height range of rider. Guys who make a living off this stuff can't even agree on 'fit' when it's based on cockpit dimensions.

When j2me says he moved his hand position a complete inch (something a lot of people have done with stems), does that mean his bike with the longer stem didn't fit? But he got the longer stem specifically because he bought a smaller frame......and then chased around the cockpit length. What improved was the handling....which is what most of us claim to be concerned with. The human body can adapt to a much larger range of cockpit setups than people realize. What you can never adapt is the ratio of your body size to muscling around a given wheelbase which defines your interaction with the ground. That's way more significant to how a bike handles than where the top of the top tube sits.

You can change your weighting over the bike, effectively lengthening or shortening it with all kinds of tools......bar sweep, bar width, bar height.....all even using the same length stem. But you can never change your contact points (wheelbase) that you'll need to make dance around at speed with a given frame size.

But I prioritize descending characteristics quite a bit. Because that's 90% of why I ride bikes. And making a frame 'fit' in the cockpit has a lot more range for interpretation. For someone racing enduro races that should apply I would think. FWIW, I haven't looked at a top tube, reach, stack or 'recommended rider size' for about 8 years when deciding on a bike.

how'd you decide? what do you prioritize, fit your person to the bike, or fit the bike to your person?

all those years you spent pedaling for pedaling's sake, and you didn't come away from it with a mild obsession about fit and ergo efficiency?

do you treat the MTB more like a BMX, "it's small to start with, I'm not trying to stretch out," etc?

And I don't get it wrong either. The only times I've ever sized up or down on a frame I already bought was when I used to buy bikes based on cockpits. That range isn't as fixed and set in stone as everyone wants you to think. That's why I think people should look at wheelbases to see how much of a deviation it's going to be from what they're used to. It's going to tell you a lot about how a frame is going to compare. In this case they're both longer....... One of them a lot longer. Longer than I would want, even being a little taller than him.

do you think that Canyon in the Barnes video might have been stretched compared to what 2-3 yrs ago would have been avg, and maybe Barnes just picked a Med because he always rode Med and now he's actually on a L or XL based on WB stretch?

you think he picked a longer frame just to get steep/fast stability and doesn't mind horsing it a bit when it's weird?

It's a different world these days. I used to buy large dh bikes to add stability because the BBs and headangles were wack. With the way things are going, I'll probably be buying a lot of smalls in the future so I can weight the back wheel without being held over the front of the bike so much with these crazy long frames coming out. There's nothing worse than being pulled forward on a frame when you try to yank back out of a turn.

you think as mfrs slackened HA they should have shortened ETT/reach/whatever its name this year? in order to not have people puzzled over why their Med is now Lg or Sm now Med?

or maybe S - M - L - XL be WB dependent rather than classic ST or ETT dependent? that might confuse a few people. would open some new doors for weird pre/post ride bench racing, WB superiority, etc.

so cesar rojo's no-stem "forward geometry" wasn't such a bad idea eh?

are there any riders who dislike the fact that we now can ride in the middle of the bike when descending steeper stuff, rather than hanging ass off the back and losing steering or riding the front axle but always threatened with flying W? some skiers still prefer to drive the tips despite many skis asking us to stay in the middle.

[thewon]

There is no one ideal fit for a mountain bike for a given rider.

BULL
































FUCKING





























SHIT.

[kidwoo]

Go ride your fat bike.