View Poll Results: 6'2" & like to bomb tight switchbacks, chunky DH, and weak jumps/drops: med or lrg?
- 25. You may not vote on this poll
Med @ 18.5" seattube, 23" eff. TT on 170mm fork
Lrg @ 20.5" seattube, 24" eff. TT on 170mm fork
6'2"-ish folks with 6-7" bikes, what size frame / fork / stem are you rockin'?
I'm looking at getting a new-to-me AM/FR bike and at 6'2" I'm torn between being cramped on a medium vs losing tight turning with a large. There may not be much difference with only 1" TT difference and 2" seatpost difference between the sizes I'm lookin' at, but I figured I'd see what other people have experienced.
My last bike (5" travel) was a large with a 24" effective TT and 19.5" seat tube with a 80mm stem and 25mm setback post, and the large I'm looking at is 24" effective TT and taller 20.5" seat tube, but is a bit more raked @ the HT than my last frame and will be run with a 160-170mm instead of 150 fork. I plan to go wider on bars from the 620mm I was used to, to something more like 680 or so, and run a stem around 60mm on this bike, which should hopefully balance out at the elbows. I'm a little worried about how much wheelbase I will gain over my last frame and fork setup and how low I can get my seat with a setback post if I go with a large. What kind of difference does an inch or so between wheelbases really make in tight turn ability?
The medium i'm considering (18.5 seattube 23" effective TT) is only really attractive to me for the shorter wheelbase / tighter turning and lower seat height, but I worry about being scrunched up over the bike or forced into a longer than ideal stem or a crazy setback post. This is for sure gonna be the case if I already run my seat waay back on a 24" toptube frame and 80mm stem, right??
For the tightest switchbacks, the med. would be better/faster I'm sure, but for stability and center of gravity purposes, being stretched a little more over a larger frame would, I assume, be better. For crazy steeps, I assume the longer bike will be slightly more endo resistant, with all else the same. For jumping, I'm not sure there'd be much difference at all.
So I'm lookin' for a census of people about my height (6'2") on 6-7" bikes to post up their specs (your height, TT, seat tube, fork length, stem length, bar width, rise or no rise bars, setback or not post, and wheelbase & standover if you know it). Also, where is your seat height in relation to your bars when you're bombing down?
Thanks in advance.
I am 6' 1 1/2" and ride a 20" Reign (large) that I use for all mountain/ free ride. I added a Thompson setback seat post to make a little more room in the cockpit. Even with the setback seat post I would bang my knees into the bars when going to standing in the pedals on a climb with a 50mm stem. At 50mm the steering was also a little twitchy. I tried a 100mm stem I had laying around and found I was weighted a little too far forward for drops and jumps. I just installed a 70 mm stem and I am comfortable with the cockpit now.
24.2 " TT, 20" seat tube, 160 mm fork, 70 mm stem, 1.5" riser bar 26 1/2" wide, setback seat post.
There is no way I would ride a medium frame except maybe on a long wheelbase full out DH rig.
Consciousness, that annoying time between bike rides.
I'm 5'11 on a Medium Reign X, I sometimes wish I got a large.
About 6'3" large scythe, 53mm stem. Feels good to me, at times does feel a tad short, but think of it as poor body position. Looking at numbers the large is more a med in other companies.
I'm 6'2". I ride a L Intense 951 and an XL Ibis Mojo HD. I had a medium Iron Horse something (cant remember the exact model) but I was always banging my knees on the bars in tight turns.
6'2" @ 210
Knolly Delirium - Large
Forks - Marzocchi 66 RC3 Evo for Gravity
- RockShox Lyric 170 DH Coil for Trail
Stem - 50mm Renthal Duo
Bars - 750mm Easton Havoc
Spacers - 20mm
(edit) I also have a 70mm Point1 Split Second stem that goes on occasionaly if the ride will involve a lot of climbing. Rare use but nice if needed - it travels in the toolbox so I have the option at trail-head if required...
A Dirtbag since 1969.
A Knomer since 2007.
RM Slayer . . .
maker of trail
Medium session 77 with 888 - pretty cramped, was my first real freeride/dh bike, loved how it handled as dh/fr bike, but definitely a bit cramped for am riding, note this had 685mm bars with marz direct mount stem.
Medium intense ss with 66 - technically wifes bike, but its so damn fun. this has 780mm bars on it, and while tt is shorter than the session, with similar (40mm) stem the wider bars make this feel roomy enough to ride yet still agile.
Large canfield lucky with 888 - my main dh bike, also now has 780mm bars, direct mount stem. this size feels roomy, but definitely more work to toss around.
I think if it were me, I'd kinda tend to medium depending on how the bike is set up (wide bars make a bike "feel" a lot bigger! Maybe large for pure xc stuff, but I ride or fun, so being able to toss it around is important to me.
Mind you when it gets steep and fast (proper dh?) the length of the lucky comes into its own, the faster it goes the better it feels, just needs a bit of muscle to throw around
maker of trail
session 77: 17.5 seat, 23 eff tt
SS: 16 seat, 22.5 eff tt
Lucy: 19 seat, 24 eff tt
Great input, everyone, thanks!
maker of trail
Also I didn't vote on your poll, simply because I'm not sure, if I was looking for a frame new, today, I'd be in the same undecided boat as you lol.
edit: although for dh fun only, depending on rest of frame geo, I would lean to the medium.
^tough decision, definitely!
I say try some wider bars than 680, for a guy your height that's awful narrow, try some 750mm. This will give you a wider grip, and bring you farther forward in the cockpit allowing you to run a much shorter stem and have greater control, honestly never heard of anyone riding AM/FR bike with bars under 700mm. Me I don't do the real DH, but I'm your height, like a 25"> ETT and run a 70-80mm stem and 750mm wide bars, oh and FYI, if the frames designed right a bit longer wheelbase won't matter much - just went from a 45" WB to a 48.25" and can't honestly tell there's a 3"+ difference from what I was riding.
Last edited by LyNx; 03-12-2012 at 06:01 PM.
Living Ghetto Fabulous!
I'm the same height as you, and wouldn't consider a "medium" sized bike for anything. (except maybe a DJ hardtail.)
I made compromises in the past looking to get a short wheelbase, but it's a moot point to me now. I actually prefer longer bikes these days. I just ride a little loose with the back wheel if you know what I mean.
I'll echo going with wider bars as well...
Originally Posted by kidwoo
35+ yrs and still not pro
I'm 6'2" 215lbs and ride a XL Mojo HD and an XL Heckler. I used to have a L Bullit, but the stem and seat post were always so long, it was too twitchy.
Originally Posted by LyNx
These are exactly the kind of experiences I wanted to hear about, thanks!!
Originally Posted by Uncle Cliffy
I'll have to try some 720-740mm bars, see how they feel.
I'm about 6'1. I had a large M1 as my first bike. The geo was whack because it was so old. I was cramped like none other, and that thing was hard to throw around. Now I'm on a med Evil Revolt. Its much roomier (Due to newer geo) and easy to throw around. It's a smidge camped for pedaling, but its an 8" bike so I'm not pedaling much anyway. I love it.
I also have a 17.5" (med) Felt compulsion. Its small, but its a jump bike. I have plenty of room when i ride and pedal, but when i do x-ups, sometimes the bar hits my knee, but i get over it.
Me: 6'2 198lbs....32-34 inseam
current bike: 2011(might as well be a 2012 now....) Intense ss2 size medium
fork: fox 36 180 talas rc2 fit
stem: twenty6 f1 i think its a 50mm
Bars: chromag fubars, uncut i believe they are 31
this bike fits like a glove, really easy to throw it around and never really feels small under me. with that said i tend to gravitate to smaller framed bikes, only had a couple large frames and they all felt to long.
small bottlerocket.....mega tiny bike, for jumping it was great......double on steroids. for anything technical i was bashing my knees
medium bottlerocket...fit perfect
medium SS1...fit perfect
large TOP fell kindda long
Medium coiler...perfect fit
large coiler long and tall
anyways, you get the point, i just prefer medium frames, to me they just tend to be easier to jump and have fun on
[SIZE="4"]Transition Bike Co.[/SIZE]
dont touch the dirt
Yeah, no matter how much I try to justify it, I'm pretty certain a bike with a 22" actual/23" effective TT is gonna be too small for me, even with >700mm bars. I already had to run an inch of seat setback, and the seat pushed all the way back on my last frame, and that's on an 80mm stem; I'd like to be able to run a 60mm, and that'd be ~2" less overall length than what I'm used to.
Turns out the HT angle of the bike I'm looking to get is pretty much the same as my last bike was with a 1° angleset installed with a 150mm fork, so wheelbase on the newer bike is likely to be damn close to my last bike, even with the 170mm fork I plan to run.
+1 for all the comments on bar width.
you're talking a lot about layback posts and stem length as though they are equivalent ways of working around top tube length. Wrong!
Saddle position only affects you when you are seated and pedalling. this is nothing to do with top tube length and is all to do with seat tube angle. When you are out of the saddle and attacking technical terrain, the saddle just needs to be out of the way and has no bearing on bike handling.
A slack seat tube will give an ETT measurement that will appear longer, but the reach from BB to bars may be exactly the same. So it turns out that ETT is a misleading measurement too.
If you're coming from 620mm bars, you've been fighting against a fit problem you didn't really need to have. a narrow hand position puts all of your arm length out in front of you so you end up fitting a long stem and dealing with the consequences. You're not the only one though. since 2007 my bar length has gone through 660, 685, 711 and now 750. prior to 2007 it was a lot narrower.
From the geometry numbers that manufacturers publish, it is possible to calculate figures for stack and reach. Stack and reach determine the fit. Head angle, BB height, chainstay length, wheelbase and travel give good indications for handling.
With all that said, I am 6'1" and have two AM bikes that I swap between: a Devinci Dixon and a Yeti SB66.
I run both in their respective large sizes. the SB66 runs a 160mm fork, so 65.9 head angle and 70.9 seat angle. the slack seat angle explains a chunk of the long ETT measurement. The Dixon is in its slack setting with a 525mm a2c 140mm fork, so is on absolutely standard geometry. 67 head angle, 72.7 seat angle. ETT is an inch shorter, but reach and stack are within 8mm. With a 711 low rise bar on the Dixon, I use a 70mm stem. With a 750mm low rise bar on the yeti I use a 55mm stem.
Fit is nearasdamnit the same. BB height is the same; chainstays about the same. The travel difference, wheelbase difference and head angle difference don't distract from both bikes being in the sweet spot. For the record, ETTs are in the 24-25 inch range.
According to the numbers, a mojo HD would be equivalent, as would an Intense Carbine. A stumpjumper Evo is a bit longer (fit); a Nomad is a bit shorter.
why are you trying to justify buying a small bike? you're 6'2"! you are definitely a large/extra large.
Originally Posted by monkei
Putting your seat bike in the rails like you do, is also likely a cause of your knew problems.
Entertaining the likely false idea that a smaller frame would somehow make me a faster rider.... You were right all along, I just wanted to see what the FR/DH crowd opinion was.
Carbon nomad XL with a boxxer. Check out my posts in the Santa Cruz forum, under the carbon nomad thread. I was scared about going to an XL, but it's the best decision I've done. This bike does just about everything very well. Too bad I suck. .
VPP is teh suck. You know Santa Cruz doesnt even use VPP anymore?
Originally Posted by IndecentExposure
Here's something that nobody wants to hear: Axle path doesn't matter for bicycle suspension. At least, it doesn't matter nearly as much as some people say. It's true. Axles move up and down, and everyone can imagine that they follow a certain path, so it's an appealing thing to think about. But unfortunately, describing an axle path as "vertical", the classic "near-vertical", "s-shaped", or "rearward", is an over-simplification of the suspension system. It's also dead wrong. Santa Cruz once published a postcard showing the axle path of the original V10 as being "S-shaped". It was misleading and technically incorrect, and we apologize. We even have a US patent that covers that specifically: Patent # 5628524. But we no longer employ it in our designs, because it doesn't really matter.
Basically, the center of your rear wheel can't move much more than 20mm in distance from the center of the bottom bracket or your pedals feel like they are getting tugged around a lot. It has taken some time, but this is something known and understood to us, and it should be known to everyone else making suspension bikes. This is especially true for multi-ring set-ups, because smaller chain-rings make the cranks move more for a given amount of chain growth. Our V10 has more than 30mm of chain growth, but since it's meant to be ridden with a big ring all the time, pedal feedback isn't such a big issue. Check out this image.
Santa Cruz Bikes UK | News
I'm 6'2". I just went from a Large Remedy to an XL Remedy, both with a 160mm fork. I also put on a shorter stem on the larger frame. I'm really happy with it. I don't have any problems getting around tight spots. I find I'm riding the bike a little differently.
The large Remedy is almost the same size as XL Ibis Mojo. I spent a lot of time comparing the geometry between different models of bikes, and size, probably too much time.
There seems to be more of a trend with people riding longer bikes now. I think people might also be going faster too. On my second ride on the new bike, I was going really fast...until I slapped.