Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    9

    Tall man frame fitting for Access XCL

    I am 6'5" and have been looking at a larger frame Acess XCL 22" Is there anyone out there who has been riding this frame as tall or taller then I? If so how is it?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: speed metal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    343
    I'm 6' 3" or 4". I got a niner xcl 23" the biggest they offered. That is what the rep recommended/ It to big for me no stand over clearance.
    Comas aren't as fun as riding your bike, so wear a Helmet.

  3. #3
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,819
    I'm 6'4" and got the 21" frame. It fit's me pretty well for non-technical xc/commuting. A little on the big side for what I like in a frame, but I tend to steer toward the small side of frames. It depends on your terrain, riding style, individual build, and personal preferences. Look at top tube, which will matter when you're riding, and standover, which does matter to a degree when you're stopped or in technical terrain. Try to find numbers somewhat similar to bikes you have liked in the past.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    9
    The frames they are selling are 20.5 and 22 for a standard 26" bike. Any idea if you have one of those? the top tube is longer then then the bike i ride now which is a balance 20.5 i love the bike but too small. I have plenty of standover on it (my legs are super long). I ride aggressive and love techical stuff. where i live its only single track. What do ya think?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    556
    I'm 6'4" and ride the 23" 29er frame. Not sure how the geometries line up between the 26 and 29. I've got monkey arms so I like the long top tube. Plus with the 23" seat tube I don't have to jack the seatpost to the moon.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    9
    cool sounds good!

  7. #7
    dru
    dru is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,636

    Your build matters

    OP, a big factor you need to consider is your inseam. Measure crotch to floor, not pants.

    I'm 6'5" and have a 38" inseam. Very long legs and very long arms. My two mountain bikes are both 24" ST, and 25 1/2" and 25" TT, I run 120mm and 110mm stems on them and there's no way you could call my riding position 'aggressive XC'. The bars are 2" below seat height and I could ride all day and still be comfortable.

    Blabbing all that, the owner of one of the LBSs is 6'4" and he gets away with 19 or 20 inch ST on his frames. I'd guess his TT length is a bit shorter on those smaller frames. His build is completely different than mine. I'm a twig, he's a clyde at 235#.

    Drew
    occasional cyclist

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GTscoob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,124
    Are you looking at the 9r XCL or the 26" XCL?

    The 23" is a very large frame, almost a 26" top tube. Somehow the one I demoed felt small, but I think it was just the tall handlebars due to the suspension fork on top of a 29" wheel.

    I'm 6'9" and was pretty comfy on my old 22" GT with about the same geo, 120mm stem, but then again I like low bars to increase the reach and ride in a pretty aggressive riding position.

    A smaller bike will force you to ride with the seatpost really extended and you may have issues getting the handlebars high enough to be comfortable. You will however have incredible standover and have a shorter wheelbase bike which will make for a more agile ride.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    19
    I own the XCL 9r in 23" and have also put a 140 mm RS Revelation on the frame. I am 6'5" and do not have a lot of stand-over clearance, but I don't care. I love the ride, I often ride technical terrain, and then I am behind the saddle often anyway. On level ground, I don't have to pull out my seatpost as far as usual, and the frame suits me better.
    Altogether I will never go for a much smaller frame again, but this is just my taste.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GTscoob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Steffen View Post
    I own the XCL 9r in 23" and have also put a 140 mm RS Revelation on the frame. I am 6'5" and do not have a lot of stand-over clearance, but I don't care. I love the ride, I often ride technical terrain, and then I am behind the saddle often anyway. On level ground, I don't have to pull out my seatpost as far as usual, and the frame suits me better.
    Altogether I will never go for a much smaller frame again, but this is just my taste.
    You might want to think about lowering that fork a bit as this frame is designed around an 80-100mm fork. Cant imagine that the bike rides well at all that raked out. If long travel HT 29er is your thing, might want to go looking at something like the Kona Honzo, TransAm 29, Canfield Yelli, or Chromag Surface. 40-60mm travel over stock is asking for problems in the long run, especially if you're riding it the way you should ride a 140mm rig.

    Since this thread came out I've picked up a 23" XCL 9r and have played around with a few different cockpit setups. I'm 6'9" and loving it with a 50mm stem and 790mm (31") wide bars on a rigid fork (corrected for 80mm of suspension).

    When I first built it I played around with 100-120mm stems and 27/28" bars and had a lot of hand numbness despite the reach being similar to my road bike. Ended up setting it up more like my dirt jumper and it rides a lot better (more fun) now albeit slower on the climbs.

  11. #11
    R.I.P. DogFriend
    Reputation: jeffj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,626
    When I first put my 23" XCL 9'r together, I had the fork at 120mm and hated it. The front end would come up or wander on steep climbs and (relatively speaking) the steering was about as good as that of a dump truck. Much better at 100mm travel. To each their own. I guess it depends on what you want from your bike, but no way I'd put a 140mm fork on mine.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by GTscoob View Post
    You might want to think about lowering that fork a bit as this frame is designed around an 80-100mm fork. Cant imagine that the bike rides well at all that raked out. If long travel HT 29er is your thing, might want to go looking at something like the Kona Honzo, TransAm 29, Canfield Yelli, or Chromag Surface. 40-60mm travel over stock is asking for problems in the long run, especially if you're riding it the way you should ride a 140mm rig.

    Since this thread came out I've picked up a 23" XCL 9r and have played around with a few different cockpit setups. I'm 6'9" and loving it with a 50mm stem and 790mm (31") wide bars on a rigid fork (corrected for 80mm of suspension).

    When I first built it I played around with 100-120mm stems and 27/28" bars and had a lot of hand numbness despite the reach being similar to my road bike. Ended up setting it up more like my dirt jumper and it rides a lot better (more fun) now albeit slower on the climbs.
    Well, actually it was a gradual process. I started with a 100 mm Suntour Raidon fork, and did not like it too much. I wanted a little more travel, and changed the fork to 120 mm travel. It was better, but the fork was not what I wanted. So I kept my eyes open and found a RS Revelation which could be travelled between 110 and 140 mm. I did not expect the 140 to be useful, but the fork was light and stiff with a 20 mm axle. When I tried the 140 mm setting, it was just perfect, optimal for what I like and ride. I often don't even bother to turn it down in steep uphills, mostly the fork sits at 140. The bike is admittedly huge, stand over clearance is very limited, but it rides great, especially in steep trails downhill. It is not that I do anything too serious, I don't do jumps any more since I crashed badly 2 years ago. For slow technical downhills, it is just perfect. On gravel flats, it flies.

    The best part is that the fork is tapered and reasonably stiff with the 20 mm axle, so it does not make funny noises under braking stress like my Manitou Minute did at 120 mm.

    I'm sure that many people would not like the ride, but I do.

    As for stability and the long lever, there is obviously an issue. I hope that it is mitigated by the 30% sag that I ride at, thus it sits at about 100 mm when I ride. This is only 20 mm more than what other people have with a rigid fork, and under braking stress the fork dives another 50 mm lower. Same if I go downhill in steep sections, thus I am lower than an 80 mm rigid fork when the fork is stressed backwards and force exerted on my frame. Maybe my reasoning is completely wrong, but so far I have not had any issues.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffj View Post
    When I first put my 23" XCL 9'r together, I had the fork at 120mm and hated it. The front end would come up or wander on steep climbs and (relatively speaking) the steering was about as good as that of a dump truck. Much better at 100mm travel. To each their own. I guess it depends on what you want from your bike, but no way I'd put a 140mm fork on mine.
    To each their own as you put it. I ride a 60 mm stem with a 700 mm handlebar with a 40 mm rise. My brakes are Shimano Saint with 203 mm rotors. It is probably quite a strange bike, but I like it

Posting Permissions

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