Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 101 to 112 of 112
  1. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    176

    Mach 6 Frame size

    Anything that recommends a 95 to 110 mm stem may be legit, but it's certainly not current. Subtract 40 mm from the calculated stem length to get to the 70 mm you wanted to run, add it to top tube length and it puts you in the large.

  2. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SDMTB'er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    762

    Mach 6 Frame size

    Quote Originally Posted by tadmcmichael View Post
    Anything that recommends a 95 to 110 mm stem may be legit, but it's certainly not current. Subtract 40 mm from the calculated stem length to get to the 70 mm you wanted to run, add it to top tube length and it puts you in the large.
    The TTL on the large is only 16 mm longer than the medium. Call it 20 mm just for fun. That then easily accommodates a 70 or 80 mm stem on the medium.

    I think where a large comes in for someone 5 10 is if you want to run a very short stem - but that would make a very upright position on a medium version of this bike at that height and make climbing more challenging to keep the front end down.
    Last edited by SDMTB'er; 02-22-2015 at 05:56 AM.

  3. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    176
    Quote Originally Posted by SDMTB'er View Post
    The TTL on the large is only 16 mm longer than the medium. Call it 20 mm just for fun. That then easily accommodates a 70 or 80 mm stem on the medium.

    I think where a large comes in for someone 5 10 is if you want to run a very short stem - but that would make a very upright position on a medium version of this bike at that height and make climbing more challenging to keep the front end down.
    You are missing something here. True enough, your medium will have more weight on the front wheel with a 80mm stem vs. a 50 mm stem. However, the longer front center of the larger frame also has the same effect of weighting the front end that the longer stem does. If it didn't, Mondrakers with direct mount stems would climb like crap (and they don't). I rode a Yeti SB5 with my same stem I ride on my Mach 6 and the front end was glued down. It's how all of the geometry works together, not just the stem length.

    Secondly, he is looking at purchasing a Mach 4 C, which is 20mm longer in large. I think you are quoting Mach 6 numbers? Obviously, 4mm is not much. As I said before I think he would be happy on either size and there is no substitute for trying the bikes out. But my best guess is he would get his best fit with a size Large if he wants to run a 70mm stem. Like it or not, short stems are the norm now. There are literally hundreds of threads touting the advantages of short stems. In fact, I think he would be served in going shorter than 70mm even on a more cross country oriented bike. If he wants to run a 95-110mm stem as the calculator suggests with the medium, he will get a similar fit but loose some technical handling capability.

  4. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SDMTB'er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    762

    Mach 6 Frame size

    Quote Originally Posted by tadmcmichael View Post
    You are missing something here. True enough, your medium will have more weight on the front wheel with a 80mm stem vs. a 50 mm stem. However, the longer front center of the larger frame also has the same effect of weighting the front end that the longer stem does. If it didn't, Mondrakers with direct mount stems would climb like crap (and they don't). I rode a Yeti SB5 with my same stem I ride on my Mach 6 and the front end was glued down. It's how all of the geometry works together, not just the stem length.

    Secondly, he is looking at purchasing a Mach 4 C, which is 20mm longer in large. I think you are quoting Mach 6 numbers? Obviously, 4mm is not much. As I said before I think he would be happy on either size and there is no substitute for trying the bikes out. But my best guess is he would get his best fit with a size Large if he wants to run a 70mm stem. Like it or not, short stems are the norm now. There are literally hundreds of threads touting the advantages of short stems. In fact, I think he would be served in going shorter than 70mm even on a more cross country oriented bike. If he wants to run a 95-110mm stem as the calculator suggests with the medium, he will get a similar fit but loose some technical handling capability.
    Great points. In the end it is all about how the bike feels for a given scenario.

    I was comparing to the M6 - my bad.

  5. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    37
    Agreed, I'm about 5' 11" w/ 34" inseam and tested both the M and the L. As soon as I threw a leg over the L, I knew it was the right size. The M's cockpit felt way too cramped and the seat post was a little over max extension.

  6. #106
    OriginalDonk
    Reputation: OriginalDonk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by SDMTB'er View Post
    And let's also say that you have taken lots of time to dial in your bike fit that when off by just a hair causes discomfort in the usual areas (wrists, lower back, etc). Wouldn't you want to approximate a similar fit as your XC rig that you knew helped you maintain your riding comfort for hours in all sorts of terrain? That is my mindset.
    These three sentences really jump out at me and clearly indicate what is driving your bike fit. You've found a body position that works for you on your Mach 429 and setup your Mach 6 the same way. The Mach 6 is very versatile and can be setup to do many things. Fairwheel bikes just built up a 23 pound version using light parts that I don't feel would last in the terrain i ride. You've got two awesome bikes that no doubt treat you well.

    Having said that it sounds like your back and wrist sensitivities are really the driving your fit for both bikes where others may pursue divergent setups closer to being optimized for different specific uses (e.g. high milleage marathon epics vs. all mountain out of the saddle descending). You know what works best for you and what your body can handle. I'm just not sure that your preference translates to other Mach 6 users that may be less constrained physically by wrist/back pain, may be comfortable on a wider range of stack/reach setups, and want different things out of their bike. My XC race hardtail is setup far differently than my all mountain bike and your recommendations don't translate to me and what I want my Mach 6 to do.

    It seems like you keep referring to top tube lengths, a measurement that was all we had to work with a few years back that now isn't referenced or discussed much when new all mountain bikes are released. Effective top tube length is more relevant for those who spend most of their time on bikes without droppers where you're pretty close to being seated at all times going up and down, something I'd expect to do more of on the marathon rides the 429 was designed to handle (though it can clearly handle more).

    What really matters to me on a bike like the Mach 6 is reach and dialing in my attack position with the seat dropped and out of the way, my weight centered over the bottom bracket, my chest down, and my elbows out. Reach tells me how much of that top tube length is in front of the bottom bracket. A bike with a longer front center and steeper seat angle may have the same TTL and a very different reach. When I drop the post and go into my attack position, that reach is going to have more bearing on how balanced I feel.

    A shorter wheelbase and shorter reach along with a longer stem is going to pull my center of mass forward. This setup may initially feel more familiar and intuitive on the flats and climbs coming off of something from a few years ago. In my opinion, what you're giving up is the ability to more effectively control your center of mass when things start going down in a hurry when the stem has you further forward. It's far easier for me to slightly alter my technique and move forward on climbs by pulling myself toward the bars at slower speeds than moving myself further back over varied terrain on nastier descents.

    A shorter stem on its own, holding everything equal, will feel more agile and quicker to respond than a longer stem. That quickness in handling should theoretically be counter balanced just enough by the leverage derived from a wider bar and stability from the Mach 6's slacker head angle. Wide bars, long stem, and slack head angle are a recipe for a slow handling bike. A shorter stem may require you to adjust your technique a bit, to weight the front end more on corners or on nasty climbs. I've found that my “adjusted” technique is actually a lot closer to the attack position I was trying to achieve and the benefits in all terrain and a variety of speeds are quite noticeable.

    At the end of the day, the Mach 6 can do so many things well. Everybody has their preferred setup. I thought it would be helpful to offer a different approach in this thread that reflects what I bought the Mach 6 to help me do.

  7. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SDMTB'er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    762

    Mach 6 Frame size

    Quote Originally Posted by OriginalDonk View Post
    These three sentences really jump out at me and clearly indicate what is driving your bike fit. You've found a body position that works for you on your Mach 429 and setup your Mach 6 the same way. The Mach 6 is very versatile and can be setup to do many things. Fairwheel bikes just built up a 23 pound version using light parts that I don't feel would last in the terrain i ride. You've got two awesome bikes that no doubt treat you well.

    Having said that it sounds like your back and wrist sensitivities are really the driving your fit for both bikes where others may pursue divergent setups closer to being optimized for different specific uses (e.g. high milleage marathon epics vs. all mountain out of the saddle descending). You know what works best for you and what your body can handle. I'm just not sure that your preference translates to other Mach 6 users that may be less constrained physically by wrist/back pain, may be comfortable on a wider range of stack/reach setups, and want different things out of their bike. My XC race hardtail is setup far differently than my all mountain bike and your recommendations don't translate to me and what I want my Mach 6 to do.

    It seems like you keep referring to top tube lengths, a measurement that was all we had to work with a few years back that now isn't referenced or discussed much when new all mountain bikes are released. Effective top tube length is more relevant for those who spend most of their time on bikes without droppers where you're pretty close to being seated at all times going up and down, something I'd expect to do more of on the marathon rides the 429 was designed to handle (though it can clearly handle more).

    What really matters to me on a bike like the Mach 6 is reach and dialing in my attack position with the seat dropped and out of the way, my weight centered over the bottom bracket, my chest down, and my elbows out. Reach tells me how much of that top tube length is in front of the bottom bracket. A bike with a longer front center and steeper seat angle may have the same TTL and a very different reach. When I drop the post and go into my attack position, that reach is going to have more bearing on how balanced I feel.

    A shorter wheelbase and shorter reach along with a longer stem is going to pull my center of mass forward. This setup may initially feel more familiar and intuitive on the flats and climbs coming off of something from a few years ago. In my opinion, what you're giving up is the ability to more effectively control your center of mass when things start going down in a hurry when the stem has you further forward. It's far easier for me to slightly alter my technique and move forward on climbs by pulling myself toward the bars at slower speeds than moving myself further back over varied terrain on nastier descents.

    A shorter stem on its own, holding everything equal, will feel more agile and quicker to respond than a longer stem. That quickness in handling should theoretically be counter balanced just enough by the leverage derived from a wider bar and stability from the Mach 6's slacker head angle. Wide bars, long stem, and slack head angle are a recipe for a slow handling bike. A shorter stem may require you to adjust your technique a bit, to weight the front end more on corners or on nasty climbs. I've found that my “adjusted” technique is actually a lot closer to the attack position I was trying to achieve and the benefits in all terrain and a variety of speeds are quite noticeable.

    At the end of the day, the Mach 6 can do so many things well. Everybody has their preferred setup. I thought it would be helpful to offer a different approach in this thread that reflects what I bought the Mach 6 to help me do.
    I largely agree with you. Here in SoCal it is rare that you just get out of the saddle for most of the ride. There are a few opportunities to shuttle, but mostly you are climbing and earning your DH, then climbing again and so on. My trips routinely earn me anywhere from 1500 to 5000 feet of climbing in an outing and I can say with confidence that for me, on the climbs is where fit issues will become painfully obvious because the geometry is fixed since everything is a function of body position while on the saddle - reach is therefore negated for this scenario. While the M6 gets the reputation more for downhill style riding, it is not realistic to say that a rider won't use the bike for XC and Trail uses as well which will have a rider 90 percent seated. For my riding style and where I ride, fit in the saddle comes first.

    But that being said, I honestly don't feel any trade offs with a medium M6 for going downhill and feel that the slightly smaller feel of it vs my medium Mach 429 C is appropriate for the bikes intended use without giving up comfort for long outings where XC riding is involved. As I mentioned earlier, I did throw a leg over the large M6 and it just feels like a lot of bike to me.

  8. #108
    OriginalDonk
    Reputation: OriginalDonk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    435
    Everybody will find what works for them. For the record, I also currently live in SoCal (Santa Monica) and rode Penasquitos, Mission Trails, and Noble two weekends ago. My typical rides also involve at least an hour of climbing for a ripping and highly varied descent.

    You are, of course, free to voice your opinion based on your experience. I think it's worth noting what is driving your decision. I've seen a lot of riders in their late teens and early 20s riding around on Mach 6's (I never had a nice bike when I was that age! Get off my lawn!) that likely don't have the back/wrist concerns that you face.

    I am confident that there's a stem length and stack height that will give you the exact same effective top tube length on a large and a shorter stem that you have with your medium with a longer stem. The difference is that you'd need to move around a bit more when you ride dynamic terrain to make things work. If your back has informed you that the range of motion required to ride a large is off the table, you better stick with your medium and longer stem.

    Just saying it may not be the best answer for others. I find that I'm climbing very efficiently and am very pleased with my setup.

  9. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SDMTB'er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    762

    Mach 6 Frame size

    Quote Originally Posted by OriginalDonk View Post
    Everybody will find what works for them. For the record, I also currently live in SoCal (Santa Monica) and rode Penasquitos, Mission Trails, and Noble two weekends ago. My typical rides also involve at least an hour of climbing for a ripping and highly varied descent.

    You are, of course, free to voice your opinion based on your experience. I think it's worth noting what is driving your decision. I've seen a lot of riders in their late teens and early 20s riding around on Mach 6's (I never had a nice bike when I was that age! Get off my lawn!) that likely don't have the back/wrist concerns that you face.

    I am confident that there's a stem length and stack height that will give you the exact same effective top tube length on a large and a shorter stem that you have with your medium with a longer stem. The difference is that you'd need to move around a bit more when you ride dynamic terrain to make things work. If your back has informed you that the range of motion required to ride a large is off the table, you better stick with your medium and longer stem.

    Just saying it may not be the best answer for others. I find that I'm climbing very efficiently and am very pleased with my setup.
    Yep, you hit a lot of where I ride. I also ride Daly, Hodges, Black Mountain (Miners loop, Widowmaker), Hollenbeck (lots o climbing) and Cuyamaca (again lots of climbing to get to the downhill on the other side of the mountain I forgot the name of) and Sycamore.

    Last time I did Noble, I did not shuttle, but rode the M6 up Pine Creek Road to sunrise highway in 30 mph headwinds. You can see that that amount of climbing needs a well fit bike.

    For the record the reach for the large M6 is a mere 12 mm (1.2 cm) longer than the medium. I think where a large will impact someone more is having a seat tube that is long enough for a taller rider.
    Last edited by SDMTB'er; 02-22-2015 at 08:49 PM.

  10. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    43
    I'm 1.78 (5'10") and Just got my M Mach 6 a couple of weeks ago.
    Going from my Large Mach 5.7, I was doubtful of going M size.
    With the standard setup (60mm stem) I have moved the saddle as aft it can go, and I think it is almost perfect.
    It does feel smaller than the 5.7 but I don't feel cramped, and I feel I can manouver better with the M M6.

    Bike is amazing so far.

  11. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    4
    I'm 6'2 and I ride a L specialized enduro 29er. Would a L Mach 6 fit for me?

  12. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    76
    I am 6'1" and I thought the large was too small. Purchased an XL and it fits great.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 01-13-2014, 09:30 PM
  2. Pivot Mach 429 -- going down a frame size -- AM
    By DavidHarsay in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-01-2013, 06:36 PM
  3. Mach 4 and Mach 5.7 Frame Weights? (Alloy)
    By ccarbot in forum Pivot Cycles
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-07-2013, 04:58 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-26-2012, 11:37 AM
  5. Frame Size: Mach 429
    By Hawg in forum Pivot Cycles
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-10-2012, 07:24 AM

Posting Permissions

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