Results 1 to 30 of 30
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GnarBrahWyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,807

    New gen geo. Reach measurement changed. Help plz.

    Is reach the ultimate geo number now? The new reach on a med v2 5010 is virtually the same as the large v1 5010. 16.8 in on the old 5010 large and 16.7 on the new v2 med 5010. The new large v2 is 17.5 in. If the old v1 large 5010 fit me like a glove, should I downsize to a med v2 5010?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,571
    No. No such thing as an "ultimate geo number", kinda meaningless looking at each figure independently. Try the new one in Large or stick with the old one if you're happy with it.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,415
    If you buy into the new "long, low, slack" hype, then you should still get a large and use a shorter stem. If not, then downsizing to the medium makes sense.
    2015 Niner Jet 9 Carbon
    2014 Focus Raven 27R
    2017 Lynskey GR250
    2016 Niner BSB
    1987 Haro RS1

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    6,927
    I like reach because ETT only tells some of the story.

    ETT can give you an idea of where the saddle willl be in relationship to the head tube, but it does not take into account seat tube angle, which can drastically change how you get the saddle where you want it.

    reach determines how far the head tube is from the cranks, so it indicates how your body will fit on the bike when you're standing and moving around on the bike.

    I also like to look at reach in relation to the frame's stack. if two frames have the same reach but different stack measurements, they are not going to fit the same. that's simple trigonometry.
    Thorn in your Sidewall
    Vassago Jabberwocky

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,785
    Quote Originally Posted by ljsmith View Post
    If you buy into the new "long, low, slack" hype...
    I wouldn't call it hype per se, but rather a trend skewing bikes toward descending, since that's how many riders get their jollies and who think it's a good trade-off.
    Do the math.

  6. #6
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,637
    With todays sea tubes that don't intersect the BB, and are bent ETT and effective seat tube angle change a lot with saddle height. On a straight tubed hard tail a 73° STA was a 73° STA, and you could look at ETT and know where the saddle would be. Not possible nowadays. Saddle rails only offer a bit of adjustment, so you really have to try it out to know. Reach and stack are real numbers, TT and STA generally are not.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSU Alum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,347
    Sit on the bike. If it feels great, that's the ultimate geo number. If you can't get a chance to sit on the bike, and you have to decide without doing so, I suppose the numbers become useful for comparison.

  8. #8
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,637
    Quote Originally Posted by Lone Rager View Post
    I wouldn't call it hype per se, but rather a trend skewing bikes toward descending, since that's how many riders get their jollies and who think it's a good trade-off.
    What's more fun than going down hill on a bike?
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    210
    None of the geometry numbers mean a single thing unless you consider ALL of the numbers at the same time, including the ones that most manufacturers leave out.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Squirrel View Post
    None of the geometry numbers mean a single thing unless you consider ALL of the numbers at the same time, including the ones that most manufacturers leave out.
    This. You have to consider things in totality. And even then you can change figures via component swaps. Maybe we'll soon see an effective reach which is affected by stem and bar choices as well.
    Everyone is entitled to my opinion.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,384
    Reach and stack should have been available a long time ago. When frames started extending the reach figures this was assuming the stem lengths were less than 50mm. I ride XL frames and in the past reach numbers averaged 440-460mm running 70-80mm stems. My 2015 Kona Process has 30mm more reach and I can run a 35-50mm stem. Takes a little time to get used to more reach but I feel less endo prone while descending.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Lone Rager View Post
    I wouldn't call it hype per se, but rather a trend skewing bikes toward descending, since that's how many riders get their jollies and who think it's a good trade-off.
    It absolutely is hype. Bike companies, magazines and websites are all saying that this "new" geometry is so superior to "old" geometry and does everything better. Its simply not true. The "new" geometry makes better descending bikes, but there is no free lunch, it compromises other things, and it sounds like you get this. Now if all you care about is going down, then thats great for you. But as I said, the hype comes from this idea that it is better for EVERYTHING.
    2015 Niner Jet 9 Carbon
    2014 Focus Raven 27R
    2017 Lynskey GR250
    2016 Niner BSB
    1987 Haro RS1

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    What's more fun than going down hill on a bike?
    Please excuse my ignorance, as I am new to mtb culture and off-pavement riding. I'm more of an adventure touring bicyclist, looking to morph into bikepacking. Recently I became enamored with gravel forest service roads and acquired a mtn bike.

    I think climbing hills is much more fun than going down hill on a bike.

  14. #14
    The White Jeff W
    Reputation: jeffw-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,431
    That's crazy talk.

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
    No moss...

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffw-13 View Post
    That's crazy talk.

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
    Oh yeah? Well, um, I think carbon frames are better than steel, too! So there! Are you one of those DH guys I've read about, who takes a lift to the top and rides only down hill? Holy McGillicutty! What is this world coming to? What kind of crazy culture have I gotten myself into?

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    6,927
    one of these days, I am going to visit the mountains with my bike, ride to the top of a mountain, then ride the gondola/lift/ helicopter/ truck back down so I can ride up it again.
    Thorn in your Sidewall
    Vassago Jabberwocky

  17. #17
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,309
    Since it's been resurrected, I'll chime in.....Reach by itself can give you a rough idea on sizing, but if that's all you look at, then you won't get the entire picture. You need to also look at Stack AND BB drop to really figure out sizing comparing different frames, as if Bike1 has a shorter Reach than Bike2, but has a higher Stack, it will actually mean that the Reach might be closer than on paper because you'll need to use more spacers on bike2 to get the bar to the same height as bike one and every spacer you put under the stem moves the bar both up and back. Add to that that bike1 has more BB drop than bike2 and then that difference could be even closer since saddle height will actually be lower on bike1, which will actually make the Stack theoretically even taller vs bike2 and the Reach actually closer.

    Best advice, as is most always the case, if you can sit on any bike you're looking at and even pedal around, much better than trying to do the math to figure crap out
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    6,927
    ^ this is why I suggested reporting stack and reach as a ratio, but that idea has not caught on yet.
    Thorn in your Sidewall
    Vassago Jabberwocky

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,108
    Quote Originally Posted by DeadGrandpa View Post
    Please excuse my ignorance, as I am new to mtb culture and off-pavement riding. I'm more of an adventure touring bicyclist, looking to morph into bikepacking. Recently I became enamored with gravel forest service roads and acquired a mtn bike.

    I think climbing hills is much more fun than going down hill on a bike.
    Whaaat? Dude. You're dead to me( JK) Ever been 46 mph uphill on your bike? Down, faster, better. Or balance the two at least. Earn your downs it called.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Whaaat? Dude. You're dead to me( JK) Ever been 46 mph uphill on your bike? Down, faster, better. Or balance the two at least. Earn your downs it called.
    Maybe it's because I'm on the verge of being old, but anything over 30mph even on good pavement scares the crap out of me. For gravel roads, it's half that number. I apologize for going off topic. I was trying to learn about bike geometry when I read where someone asked a (now I realize) rhetorical question. Your responses have been interesting.

    Back to bike geo, can someone please explain why mtb handlebars are so freaking wide? (For the record, I don't like drops anymore and my road bikes have trekking bars and mtb gearing.) Seems more likely to smash my hand into a tree while I'm zooming (bombing?) down the trail. I'm not a fan of crashing and bragging about it later. However, I'm getting my first single mtb bikepacking bike this week, a 29+, so maybe I'll find out what it's all about from experience. My history, though, has taught me that experience is kinda painful sometimes. 😎

  21. #21
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,309
    I will be honest here and say it may not be as thrilling to your nerves with the sense of what could happen if you mess up, but clearing a technical climb exhilarates me more than clearly a fast down, now if we're talking a pick your way, tech DH, that's another story, but still love to climb Guess it's the "nearly about to get old" thing in me as well

    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Whaaat? Dude. You're dead to me( JK) Ever been 46 mph uphill on your bike? Down, faster, better. Or balance the two at least. Earn your downs it called.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  22. #22
    Pro Crastinator
    Reputation: .WestCoastHucker.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,936
    while i believe plenty of people enjoy a good climb, calling it "fun" is ridiculous...


  23. #23
    Here, diagonally!
    Reputation: JACKL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,767
    Fun in a sick way. Like visiting a Dominatrix.
    Banshee Prime

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by DeadGrandpa View Post
    Maybe it's because I'm on the verge of being old, but anything over 30mph even on good pavement scares the crap out of me. For gravel roads, it's half that number. I apologize for going off topic. I was trying to learn about bike geometry when I read where someone asked a (now I realize) rhetorical question. Your responses have been interesting.

    Back to bike geo, can someone please explain why mtb handlebars are so freaking wide? (For the record, I don't like drops anymore and my road bikes have trekking bars and mtb gearing.) Seems more likely to smash my hand into a tree while I'm zooming (bombing?) down the trail. I'm not a fan of crashing and bragging about it later. However, I'm getting my first single mtb bikepacking bike this week, a 29+, so maybe I'll find out what it's all about from experience. My history, though, has taught me that experience is kinda painful sometimes.
    Wide bars are a good move imo. Even in the 1990s I was putting wide dh bars on my xc bike. Opening up a bit makes it easier to breath and more comfortable. Also gives more leverage to toss the bike around. Of course on really tight courses it's a trade off and you might want a bit narrower to fit between trees. I find that about 780mm feels ideal for me and I can easily tolerate 750mm if it helps with trees. Most courses are cut with at least 800mm of clearance it seems so usually I have no issues with wider bars. You need a shorter stem as bars get wider to keep your body in the same spot. Give em a shot, I bet you'll like it


    Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    67
    I rode my new bike (Trek 1120) for the first time on a couple trails in Uwharrie Nat'l Forest just last week. One trail flowed nicely and was fun. The other trail was more difficult and technical, with rock gardens that would give hikers sprained ankles. It wasn't fun. I hit a tree with the end of the handlebars and fell over, and nearly rolled off the edge of the trail several times. I pushed my bike a lot on that trail. Admittedly I have no suspension, only 3inch tires, and no experience on trails except for hiking. Those wide handlebars didn't help on the hard trail. Maybe I better stick to the gravel roads and easy flow trails. Geez, the places you gotta ride to avoid texting drivers.

  26. #26
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,309
    Oh man, so sorry that you aren't a blessed prodigy able to ride whatever trail you point your bike at first go, welcome to the real world Seriously, if you've never ridden proper trails before, you're going to take some time to learn how to handle your bike on them, learn things like pedal kick, Pull the front wheel up over obstacles, stall and balance to get through a tight spot or tricky section, give it a year or three, should be good by then Oh and again, welcome to most people's world

    Seriously, give the wider bars a chance, especially if you want to ride technical trails on a PLUS rigid, having that extra leverage will pay dividends once you have more time on the bike on real trails. In case you think I'm BSing you, I'm the guy, who like you when I first started thought I needed 23'/580mm wide bars to ride my favourite trail because it was so tight and overgrown, but fast forward to now, 13 years later and I ride that same trail with minimum 760mm wide bars and have no issues, but do have a lot more control on the rough tech sections by a mile compared to that stupid narrow bar of yester year.

    Quote Originally Posted by DeadGrandpa View Post
    I rode my new bike (Trek 1120) for the first time on a couple trails in Uwharrie Nat'l Forest just last week. One trail flowed nicely and was fun. The other trail was more difficult and technical, with rock gardens that would give hikers sprained ankles. It wasn't fun. I hit a tree with the end of the handlebars and fell over, and nearly rolled off the edge of the trail several times. I pushed my bike a lot on that trail. Admittedly I have no suspension, only 3inch tires, and no experience on trails except for hiking. Those wide handlebars didn't help on the hard trail. Maybe I better stick to the gravel roads and easy flow trails. Geez, the places you gotta ride to avoid texting drivers.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,043
    Quote Originally Posted by DeadGrandpa View Post
    I rode my new bike (Trek 1120) for the first time on a couple trails in Uwharrie Nat'l Forest just last week. One trail flowed nicely and was fun. The other trail was more difficult and technical, with rock gardens that would give hikers sprained ankles. It wasn't fun. I hit a tree with the end of the handlebars and fell over, and nearly rolled off the edge of the trail several times. I pushed my bike a lot on that trail. Admittedly I have no suspension, only 3inch tires, and no experience on trails except for hiking. Those wide handlebars didn't help on the hard trail. Maybe I better stick to the gravel roads and easy flow trails. Geez, the places you gotta ride to avoid texting drivers.
    What narrow bars have you tried? I tried 800mm and it was an excruciating ride. Cut them down to 750 and I'm happy as a clam. Moved from my old bike with 685.

    Sent from my XT1049 using Tapatalk

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by tfinator View Post
    What narrow bars have you tried? I tried 800mm and it was an excruciating ride. Cut them down to 750 and I'm happy as a clam. Moved from my old bike with 685.
    Well, this is the first mtn bike I've ever ridden on a trail. My other bikes (except for the mtb tandem, which I've only ridden on gravel roads) are paved road bikes with drops or trekking handlebars. I don't ride the bikes with drops anymore. I'm not saying the wide mtb bars are uncomfortable. They just feel unnatural. I'll get used to it. I've heard a wider hand position is supposed to give you more control, so I'll work on that, but I'll be taking a gravel road alternate instead of the gnarly technical trail. I'd rather pedal long steady climbs than dodge obstructions, pushing the bike. Heck, just riding off pavement is a big step. First time ever was 15 months ago, and I'm 65.😎

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    89
    DeadGrandpa, just stick to trails you feel comfortable on and have fun, and your skills will get better little by little. You might find at some point that you ride trails and remember when you thought they were impossible.

  30. #30
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,309
    Well, I'll give you major props for still giving it a go at your age, hoping when I get there I still can as well. As to the wider bar, yes, they will give you more leverage and hence control on the more technical stuff, so give it time and you will get a bit more accustomed to the feeling. That being said, there is no hard and fast rule that you have to run really wide bars like me, especially if you're not going to be doing any serious tech/fast DH, so if you feel the need to cut them down, do it, just don't go to any extreme off the bat - cut 10mm from each side then give it a good week or two before deciding you want more off. I will say that unless you're under 5'4", try to not go narrower than 720mm without first giving it a good bit of time to get accustomed to the wide feeling - narrowest I run on my SM loaner bike is 710mm and that fits down to 5'2" and never heard a complaint.

    Quote Originally Posted by DeadGrandpa View Post
    Well, this is the first mtn bike I've ever ridden on a trail. My other bikes (except for the mtb tandem, which I've only ridden on gravel roads) are paved road bikes with drops or trekking handlebars. I don't ride the bikes with drops anymore. I'm not saying the wide mtb bars are uncomfortable. They just feel unnatural. I'll get used to it. I've heard a wider hand position is supposed to give you more control, so I'll work on that, but I'll be taking a gravel road alternate instead of the gnarly technical trail. I'd rather pedal long steady climbs than dodge obstructions, pushing the bike. Heck, just riding off pavement is a big step. First time ever was 15 months ago, and I'm 65.😎
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

Similar Threads

  1. Help an old school guy understand Reach measurement
    By TomFL in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-30-2015, 03:00 PM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-18-2015, 10:45 AM
  3. Bicycle geometry: "reach" measurement for a mtb?
    By katen21 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-11-2014, 08:41 PM
  4. Crank and chain device plz plz help!!!!!!
    By jontry1 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-11-2012, 07:29 AM
  5. FSR Brain S-Works Gen 1 or Gen 2?
    By trmn8er in forum Specialized
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-01-2012, 06:05 PM

Members who have read this thread: 100

Posting Permissions

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