Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1
    Jyn
    Jyn is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    57

    6’-6’1 on a medium?

    Any of y’all over 6’ ride a medium? Trying to decide whether or not to trade up for a L. Medium fits me pretty good, but get a little cramped on flats

  2. #2
    Co Springs
    Reputation: bachman1961's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,430
    I'm 5' 10.75 and I could have went large probably just fine. I do have a med and for my type of riding it's working good.
    I say go large. Aches, pains or any nuance now will get worse over time IMO , part of that may be aging so if you aren't aging you can discount that notion.

    If you got any input or recommendations on size from a shop or LBS, I think they were a bit inept in guidance putting you on a med but if you have short arms or not an average build / torso / inseam, that's really the deal and I'm off base. Just find your zone for comfort, performance and pedal power.... then you've nailed it.

    In the Middle Ages, the biggest mistake was not putting on your armor because you were 'just going down to the corner.'

  3. #3
    ultra grumpy
    Reputation: noapathy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,594
    I'm 5'8.055932" and I usually ride a medium. At 6'1", large is your best bet.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,447
    Get a large.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    5
    Frame size and fitment is not as set in stone like road cycling. If youre off the saddle a lot, its negligible. Insay this cause I bounce between my small frame 90s 26" hardtail cause its so light. I'm 6'2" and the Small frame is fine on short rides. Main bike is Large 29er and sometimes feels too big when

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: targnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    4,205
    5'11" 1/2 here... 6 foot w/ my hiking boots on ;-P

    I ride L &/or XL, ape index is +5

    Go L unless your ape index is -5 o_0

    'We'll all make it to the top... Some of us, might not make it to the bottom'
    "Mountain biking: the under-rated and drug-free antidepressant"

  7. #7
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,538
    All depends on which brand you're talking about, Mediums range from around 400mm all the way up to around 470mm Reach. You can't just ask about arbitrary sizing names like Small, Medium, Large and XL anymore without first saying what brand and more specifically, which model. As mentioned above, the Mondraker Factor Trail bike in size "medium" has a 471mm Reach, that's longer than most every other brands Large Reach numbers, and even some XLs, on the shorter side, you've got bikes like the Turner Flux with a 426mm Reach, that's nearly 2" difference.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  8. #8
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Spearmint View Post
    Frame size and fitment is not as set in stone like road cycling. If youre off the saddle a lot, its negligible. Insay this cause I bounce between my small frame 90s 26" hardtail cause its so light. I'm 6'2" and the Small frame is fine on short rides. Main bike is Large 29er and sometimes feels too big when
    ...when..?

    6'2 on a Small 90s hardtail sounds AWFUL. I'm your height and if it's not an XL it probably handles like crap. To each his own, i suppose.


    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    All depends on which brand you're talking about, Mediums range from around 400mm all the way up to around 470mm Reach. You can't just ask about arbitrary sizing names like Small, Medium, Large and XL anymore without first saying what brand and more specifically, which model. As mentioned above, the Mondraker Factor Trail bike in size "medium" has a 471mm Reach, that's longer than most every other brands Large Reach numbers, and even some XLs, on the shorter side, you've got bikes like the Turner Flux with a 426mm Reach, that's nearly 2" difference.
    i think it's the exact opposite- since there's so much variation in reach it's even more important now to use Size rather than Reach for sizing. All the other attributes of the bike will be proportioned so the rider can fit that reach.

    Reach has become a handling characteristic, not a sizing tool.
    "Things that are complex are not useful, Things that are useful are simple."
    Mikhail Kalashnikov

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    144
    it really depends on the manufacturer. I had a medium Santa cruz and it was too small for me (5'-10") but now I ride a medium guerrilla gravity (sized for 5'-8" to 6'-0") and it fits way way better.

    also it depends on what you like more (stability or twitchiness). if you can try both a M and L to see what feels right to you. everyone is not the same so you might like the M more.
    Last edited by 2zmtnz; 6 Days Ago at 12:31 PM.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: targnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    4,205
    Agree w/ scottzg re reach.

    My old '12 Transition Bandit had a shortish reach, particularly when compared w/my then n+1 '14 Kona Process 134.

    Plus, the Bandit was an XL compared to the L 134.

    'We'll all make it to the top... Some of us, might not make it to the bottom'
    "Mountain biking: the under-rated and drug-free antidepressant"

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    124
    It seems like there was a fad for awhile (still?) of people thinking they needed a smallish frame. My son raced in college and insisted a L was his size - despite his 6'3" frame. I smiled recently when he picked up a used XL HT frame to swap over the components from his L HT. He admitted the L was too small.

    I'm just shy of 6'2 and can ride a L, but generally prefer an XL. If riding a L, I often need a longer-than-standard seatpost.

    AM.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,803
    Depends on the frame dimensions. I tend to be in between at the same height as an earlier poster at 5' 10 3/4". My B'ed MUSS is a med 17" frame with 595mm ETT while my RMB blizzard (26 wheels) is a M/L at 18.5" with 580mm ETT. I also ride a fatbike with 622mm ETT. I have different stem lengths to keep the cockpit length the same. It also depends on what type of riding you will be doing, frame geometry and sizing will vary based on whether or not this is a dirt jumper or a bikepacker. So the question to you is from what med. bike to what large, or is it the same model?
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    72
    Have you put any miles on a large frame? I assume if you have, you'd be able to answer this by yourself. Some people do like riding frames outside of the typical height range. But 6'1" is quite a bit out of range, depending on the bike. I'm 5'10" and I can ride both mediums and larges, they just feel different. I couldn't imagine being any taller on my medium. I would recommend finding a friend or rental shop with a large that you're interested in and try it out.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    1,738
    Quote Originally Posted by 2zmtnz View Post
    it really depends on the manufacturer. I had a medium Santa cruz and it was too small for me (5'-10") but now I ride a medium guerrilla gravity (sized for '-8" to 6'-0") and it fits way way better.

    also it depends on what you like more (stability or twitchiness). if you can try both a M and L to see what feels right to you. everyone is not the same so you might like the M more.
    Same experience here except that I had a medium Devinci that was too small for me at 5' 11" while a medium Guerilla Gravity fits me perfectly.
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  15. #15
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,538
    Couldn't disagree more with this. Changing the seat tube angle to put someone further over the BB to help compensate for an overly long Reach is not the right solution, IMHO, but with the trend to more and more flow/jump trails and people wanting to just get to the top as painlessly as possible to be able to bomb the downs, it works. For me Reach tells me exactly how a frame is going to feel when it is most important, when I am out of the saddle, I then adjust my position relative to the BB by using either a straight or setback post, depending on the bikes STA,. Going by an arbitrary frame size like L or Xl, does not work, proven by my owing a L and XL frame from the same company, but two different bikes, but both have almost identical Reach numbers, which is how I knew what to go with and not just "XL".

    Quote Originally Posted by scottzg View Post
    i think it's the exact opposite- since there's so much variation in reach it's even more important now to use Size rather than Reach for sizing. All the other attributes of the bike will be proportioned so the rider can fit that reach.

    Reach has become a handling characteristic, not a sizing tool.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  16. #16
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    For me Reach tells me exactly how a frame is going to feel when it is most important, when I am out of the saddle, I then adjust my position relative to the BB by using either a straight or setback post, depending on the bikes STA,. Going by an arbitrary frame size like L or Xl, does not work, proven by my owing a L and XL frame from the same company, but two different bikes, but both have almost identical Reach numbers, which is how I knew what to go with and not just "XL".
    Reach doesn't take in to account what bar/stem the bike was designed around, or other variables that affect weight distribution like chainstay length or front-center. Heck, head tube length can change the reach number quite a bit and have 0 effect on anything. Sizing lets the designer tell you exactly what size person the bike was intended for without us having to guess based on a kinda random number.

    I know in your case you know how it all works and what you like, but most people don't. I generally know what's up, but i still want to know what designer intended first, rather than constraining them to a specific measurement.


    Agree to disagree.
    "Things that are complex are not useful, Things that are useful are simple."
    Mikhail Kalashnikov

  17. #17
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,538
    OK, for sure, Reach is not the only number to look at, Stack coupled with BB drop, against Reach are the basics, then CS length plays a bit into it, but once I know the reach, stack and BB drop, I can know exactly how I'll fit on any given bike compared to my known bikes. A key example for me of a lot of BS is the seriously out there bikes with super long reach and then super steep STAs, just doesn't work, their Mediums are what fits me, no matter what they try to tell me, although I think I'd have serious trouble getting my saddle where it should be, for me with those stupid steep STAs.

    Quote Originally Posted by scottzg View Post
    Reach doesn't take in to account what bar/stem the bike was designed around, or other variables that affect weight distribution like chainstay length or front-center. Heck, head tube length can change the reach number quite a bit and have 0 effect on anything. Sizing lets the designer tell you exactly what size person the bike was intended for without us having to guess based on a kinda random number.

    I know in your case you know how it all works and what you like, but most people don't. I generally know what's up, but i still want to know what designer intended first, rather than constraining them to a specific measurement.


    Agree to disagree.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    154
    I am 5'11 on a large.
    At 6+ft I'd think large for sure unless you have very short legs relative to your height, or have some other specific reason.
    You could try lengthening the stem on your current bike to see how that feels. But you can't do too much of that with these newer designs I don't think.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    381
    Im 5'11" on a medium. I went with the theory of smallest that would fit me without hitting my knees on the bars when standing and sprinting. Its plenty comfortable and yet very nimble to toss around. This is on a 435mm reach bike.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-25-2017, 02:37 PM
  2. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 10-25-2016, 07:27 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-21-2016, 03:00 PM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-31-2015, 03:26 AM
  5. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-17-2013, 07:40 AM

Members who have read this thread: 114

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •