Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 112
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: markmyers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    75

    Mach 6 Frame size

    I'm about to order a Mach 6 frame from my LBS, I'm going back and forth between Large and Medium frame size. My height is 5"10".
    Pivot's frame recommendations-
    Med- 5'9"-6'
    Large- 5'11"-6'2"

    I have been riding a large frame firebird even though its recommended for 5"11" and up. The reason is that I don't like how bikes handle with a long stem and I don't want a medium with a long stem. I also (maybe just in my mind) feel like I have a little more stability during high speed descending which is my 1st priority when bike shopping. Right now I'm leaning toward a medium but I just don't want to have to have that long stem on it.

    What I'm wondering is- can anyone here who has been riding their new Mach 6 shed some light on how they like their frame size for their height?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    4,277
    I am the same height as you and got a large. I rode the medium and it felt tight even with the 70 mm stem they ship it with. Unless you want a BMX style setup I would go the same direction.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: robertj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    401
    I'm happy with a large at 6'1"; long legs, shorter torso. I'm currently running a 70mm stem, 750mm bar. Yesterday's ride had a lot of steep up/down switchbacks and punchy climbs, and I had the room I needed to work the ups. All other aspects felt great as well so I'll run with it.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: markmyers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    75
    Thanks for the replies so far. You guys have me leaning towards the Large frame/short stem. I think I'm right in that tricky 'goldilocks' height where its right between medium and large. I won't have a chance to demo before buying so I'm trying to gather all the intel I can.

    I'm so excited about this bike that I kept waking up last night thinking about it! Mach 6 be causing insomnia!

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: robertj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    401
    Well, if it is any consolation, your excitement and lost sleep over the Mach6 is completely warranted. Sooo much fun! I'm really glad I had multiple days off to throw a few different types of trails at her right off the bat.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: markmyers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    75
    Further update- now back in the medium camp after thinking it over a bit more and sadistically obsessing over every review and comment I could find in this forum and other reviews.

    The guy who wrote this is just under 6' tall-
    "The medium size felt really good. I suspect I could’ve fit fine on the large as well but the medium felt playful and compact without feeling cramped. I took to it immediately."


    Also the length of the top tube on the medium is only .4in less than the large Firebird, I have a very short stem on my FB so I can have a similar one here or a touch larger and it'll probably feel like home with less weight. Salespunk makes me a little nervous since it seems he's as obsessed as I am and he's getting the large but I think I'll roll the dice on Medium. I'm going to see if there is a shop in town that has a medium I can sit on.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    4,277
    In terms of sizing, I ride a large HD with an 80 mm stem so I like my bikes more stretched out. I figure my Mach 6 should be perfect with a 65 stem.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Macharza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    40
    I'm 5'8" and riding Medium /w short stem (50mm) and it's fine.
    Mach6 top tube is much longer than FB

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: markmyers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    75
    For anyone still interested in this-
    I called around and a LBS had a medium frame (with 80mm stem, standard from Pivot), they strapped on some pedals and I did some laps in the parking lot. It felt pretty close but just a tiny bit too cramped. I know the stem will have to be shorter on my bike and that tips the scales to the large. Bike shop guy said he thinks my legs are on the longer side and that forces me a bit high and over the bars for a medium and I think he's right.
    Final answer= Large Frame

    Its the first time I've seen the bike in person and I must say it is very good looking and seemed super stiff and light. It was an XX1 build with tubes, no pedals or dropper it was only 26.23 on the scale.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: thegromit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    359
    What's going on with there reach numbers. I'm like 172cm and want to run a 50mm stem. Looking at geo's of kona process 153 and knolly warden these reach numbers look so short. Top tube is about the same. If I want to run that short of stem should I go large?
    Life is like riding a bicycle. To stay balanced, one must keep moving. - Albert Einstein

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: thegromit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    359
    Life is like riding a bicycle. To stay balanced, one must keep moving. - Albert Einstein

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: miles e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,946
    Quote Originally Posted by thegromit View Post
    What's going on with there reach numbers. I'm like 172cm and want to run a 50mm stem. Looking at geo's of kona process 153 and knolly warden these reach numbers look so short. Top tube is about the same. If I want to run that short of stem should I go large?
    The Mach 6 (like most Pivots) has a pretty slack seat tube angle, effectively decreasing reach for a given top tube length. I haven't heard the rationale for this from Pivot, but I suspect it is attributable at least in part to the inherent antisquat nature of the DW Link suspension.

    Designs like the Kona and Knolly will sink into their travel more when climbing, and a steep seat tube angle helps keep the riders weight from sliding too far back. The Pivot will ride higher in its travel, allowing the front to be more easily weighted under these circumstances.

    I happen to like Pivot's approach, as a) it allows for a shorter wheelbase (long reach/short stems are nice to a point, but eventually the wheelbase can become unwieldy) b) it allows for zero offset seat posts without putting the rider in a TT position at full extension.
    ''It seems like a bit of a trend, everyone trying to make things longer over the last couple of years" Sam Hill

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: thegromit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    359
    I'm coming off a medium tracer 275 60mm stem which rode pretty well. Climbed good descended very well. I was running a -1.0 angleset on a 160 pike so the headangle was 66.5 +or- .2 bb raised a bit somewhere near 13.5 or so. Comparing geo there pretty close but the pivots Top tube is reading longer by .6 than the intense which I want but intended still has a longer reach. I don't get how pivot is coming up with such a short reach.
    Life is like riding a bicycle. To stay balanced, one must keep moving. - Albert Einstein

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: miles e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,946
    Quote Originally Posted by thegromit View Post
    Comparing geo there pretty close but the pivots Top tube is reading longer by .6 than the intense which I want but intended still has a longer reach. I don't get how pivot is coming up with such a short reach.
    That is odd considering Intense also lists a slack "effective" seat tube angle of 71* I can only guess that the companies calculate "effective" (since the seat tubes do not form a straight line with the BB) seat tube angle, and in turn effective top tube length, differently. Having the reach measurement is very useful in cases like this, and it helps explain why the wheelbase on the Intense actually comes out longer than the Pivot, even though it has a shorter listed ETT and 1.5* steeper HTA.

    At ~5' 8" it seems unlikely that you would want a large, but perhaps not completely out of the realm of possibility. The head tube/standover is only nominally taller than the medium, so if the seat tube length works for you (i.e. it allows you to run your dropper of choice) it might very well work for you.

    One other consideration- if you haven't already it may worth trying a wider bar with a 50mm stem on your current ride (or even just trying the shorter stem by itself) to make absolutely sure you want to make up for the shorter stem with a longer top tube.
    ''It seems like a bit of a trend, everyone trying to make things longer over the last couple of years" Sam Hill

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: thegromit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    359
    I am going to be running 785mm bars. Probably just my 60mm stem and get a medium if I get one. I was just liking what these other company's where doing with long top tube short stem combo.
    Life is like riding a bicycle. To stay balanced, one must keep moving. - Albert Einstein

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: thegromit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    359
    I really can't decide what size to get. I want to ride a 50/40mm stem but fear the 15.8 Reach will make me too cramped. The 16.3 reach is more inline with most the bikes I've been looking at (knolly warden/kona process 153) In my eyes the good for the large is; longer reach, 45" wheelbase the head angle is 66.25 and I already have a pike 160 so I won't dip below 66* the bad/worry is will I fit with my 120mm reverb, I think I will but not sure. I also have 170mm cranks. My friend at the bike shop agreed with me about running a large with the short stem. He's my height and also thinks the medium feels a little small. Anyone with a large running a short stem 50/40mm? If so how tall are you and what bike where you riding before? It seems like every bike in this category has a longer reach. Am I crazy for thinking like this?
    Life is like riding a bicycle. To stay balanced, one must keep moving. - Albert Einstein

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: markmyers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Salespunk View Post
    I am the same height as you and got a large. I rode the medium and it felt tight even with the 70 mm stem they ship it with. Unless you want a BMX style setup I would go the same direction.

    What size stem did you decide on and how does it feel?

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    4,277
    I am on an 80 stem with 1 cm of spacers and it feels great.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Foxbat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    177
    I demoed the Mach 6 in both a medium and large with a 50mm stem. Being 5'9" with a 31" inseam, I could have picked either size. Neither felt wrong for my height and I liked both, they just felt different. The medium was more playful and the large more stable. I ended up with a medium Bronson and I run a 50mm stem and I'm very happy.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    69
    I'm 5'11, 32" inseam and ride a large with the stock stem. Feels just fine. Thought about the medium, which I ride in Specialized sizes, but the large felt just fine on the Mach 6 to me. Happy with it
    I have too many bikes, but it's not enough

  21. #21
    OriginalDonk
    Reputation: OriginalDonk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    435
    I'm 5'11" with a 32.5" inseam, normal proportions. Took out a Mach 6 from the Bike Co. They calle and me, discussed my riding style and existing bike before suggesting a large with a shorter stem. Took a large with a 50mm stem out to some Santa Ana Mountain chunk and felt really balanced. Can't say "dialed" give the tire/fork setup on the demo fleet but really solid. Walked back in and ordered a large.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    377
    The Mach 6 has a very short reach when you compare it to the 'modern geometry' bikes (mostly from europe).
    That's what was holding me back ordering one. I had a Bronson and I would have liked it to have longer reach too (but the Bronson is even longer than the Pivot). So the Mach 6 felt of my short list.
    Ibis has the same problems with too cramped cockpits as well I think.

  23. #23
    Ambi-Turner
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    124
    I'm just under 5ft 9in and running a medium with 50mm stem. Fits perfect. I was on a Carbine 275 medium with 50mm stem. That fit well, but the Mach6 has a big "sweet spot" to work within. The cockpit feels roomy compared to the Carbine but I never feel stretched out.

    According to Pivot, I should run a small (5"4 - 5"9), but I'm glad I'm on a medium. Maybe their sizing chart reflects the fact that they ship bikes with too much stem.

    I would recommend going with a stem 65mm or less on aggressive trail bikes like a Mach6, Range Killer, Process 153, Bronson, etc. Longer stems seem to work better on light trail or XC bikes or if you won't be riding a lot of steep downhills.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    5

    Mach 6 size.

    Quote Originally Posted by Throttlemire View Post
    I'm just under 5ft 9in and running a medium with 50mm stem. Fits perfect. I was on a Carbine 275 medium with 50mm stem. That fit well, but the Mach6 has a big "sweet spot" to work within. The cockpit feels roomy compared to the Carbine but I never feel stretched out.

    According to Pivot, I should run a small (5"4 - 5"9), but I'm glad I'm on a medium. Maybe their sizing chart reflects the fact that they ship bikes with too much stem.

    I would recommend going with a stem 65mm or less on aggressive trail bikes like a Mach6, Range Killer, Process 153, Bronson, etc. Longer stems seem to work better on light trail or XC bikes or if you won't be riding a lot of steep downhills.
    I ride enduro, I also cannot decide what size, I am 5" 10, the concern I have with the medium is on steep technical climbs, the slack seat angle will put you over the back wheel when seat post is fully extended, as for cramped position I am not concerned as on descents I am generally standing with weight on pedals. Like the idea of lower. Bottom bracket for my style of riding. I am hoping to test a medium in the next week or so, the large felt to big for me even with 50mm stem.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    39
    I wish I had one to sit on at least to test here, but I had to order mine sight unseen. I'm 5'8" and both the bike shop and pivot customer service recommended the small. We'll see. It should hopefully be here today or tomorrow.

    From reading this, a medium with a 50mm stem might have been best. I think my legs are slightly shorter than they should be for my torso so who knows.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,562

    Re: Mach 6 Frame size

    Quote Originally Posted by DaMaDo View Post
    I wish I had one to sit on at least to test here, but I had to order mine sight unseen. I'm 5'8" and both the bike shop and pivot customer service recommended the small. We'll see. It should hopefully be here today or tomorrow.

    From reading this, a medium with a 50mm stem might have been best. I think my legs are slightly shorter than they should be for my torso so who knows.
    Hmm, at 5'8" a Medium should be a better choice, especially if you are planning to run a 50mm stem.
    I am close to 5"9" and the Demo M felt just right.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Macharza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    40
    I'm 5'77 with M size and a 50 mm stem.
    It's perfect to me

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    39
    I just got my small M6 and it initially seemed a bit too small until I got back on my medium Scott Spark 960 to compare.

    All of a sudden the Scott seemed even smaller in comparison surprisingly. I know I've been fine on that bike so I think I'll keep the small M6. I won't do the shorter stem yet though.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,804
    I'm 5'11" 33 pants inseam..long arms.

    - large Mach 6
    - 65mm stem 5mm spacer
    - 740mm bars

    Tried a 50mm stem and the bike was too cramped.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    39
    When seated on the bike and you have your arms, back, and neck straight and you look down, where is the front wheel hub in relation to the stem/handlbar intersection?

    My whole hub is just in front of the handlebar. Not sure if that's right or wrong on an AM MTB.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,804
    Quote Originally Posted by DaMaDo View Post
    When seated on the bike and you have your arms, back, and neck straight and you look down, where is the front wheel hub in relation to the stem/handlbar intersection?

    My whole hub is just in front of the handlebar. Not sure if that's right or wrong on an AM MTB.
    My hub lines up with my bars when seated on my Mach 6.

    On my Nomad my hub is way behind my bars [90mm stem] and I ride hard on the tech up and down.

    I wouldn't get overly concerned about where the hub is relative to the bars.

    You are going to do all your important riding in the attack position and what matters is where you COG is which is quite dependant on your body type.

    You can move your COG around quite a bit in the attack position so there are a variety of stem/bar positions that can work for any person. It just comes down to what you prefer.

    If your COG is further back you will have to move your body forward to get weight/traction on the front wheel in turns and on steep climbs, but you'll naturally be further behind the front wheel for steep downs/drops.

    If your COG is further forward you will naturally be in a good position for turns and steep climbs, but you'll have to move further back behind the front wheel for steep downs/drops.

    Stems are cheap so grab a couple options and try them out on your local trails to see what you like best.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    39
    Thanks Vik, I appreciate that.

    I took my M6 out yesterday and I felt like I could do a lot more on it than my medium sized Scott Spark. It felt a lot more flickable and controllable in tight turns. I think there's a lot more weight on the front with the small M6 than on my medium Scott Spark. I never knew what would happen in a turn with the Spark, but I had a much better grasp of turns just on my first ride on the M6 yesterday.

    I also just ordered a KS i900-R dropper which has a 20mm setback so that will make a slight change when I'm sitting, although now I'm thinking I probably don't need it.

    EDIT: I set the bike up with two bathroom scales, one under the center of each wheel and saw my weight distribution when sitting (33/66, front/rear) and in the attack position and it seems this is actually perfect. I am about 50/50 when in attack position and moving ever so slightly alters that reasonably well.
    Last edited by DaMaDo; 03-29-2014 at 05:48 PM.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Southbay Bomber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    159
    I just attended a demo this morning at took out a medium. I'm 5'10" and did not feel cramped on it. The guy setting me up (5'11") rides a medium with a 60mm stem and wider than stock bar. The large was not available for me at. I'm currently riding a large Blur LTc with a 50mm stem and still feel a touch stretched out. I recently tried the Bronson in both medium and large and would need to go large. The Bronson felt like my BLTc but I think I like the Pivot better. I'll hit up the Sea Otter Classic and hopefully try the new Tracer carbon to see how that compares.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Southbay Bomber View Post
    I just attended a demo this morning at took out a medium. I'm 5'10" and did not feel cramped on it. The guy setting me up (5'11") rides a medium with a 60mm stem and wider than stock bar. The large was not available for me at. I'm currently riding a large Blur LTc with a 50mm stem and still feel a touch stretched out. I recently tried the Bronson in both medium and large and would need to go large. The Bronson felt like my BLTc but I think I like the Pivot better. I'll hit up the Sea Otter Classic and hopefully try the new Tracer carbon to see how that compares.
    The Bronson has a longer effective TT and reach than the same size M6. So if you need a large Bronson I don't see how you'd want a medium M6.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Southbay Bomber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    159
    I don't know what to say other than it was a different set of trails this time. I didn't care for the feel of the Fox 34 last time but with the same pressure set this time around I thought it was fine.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    39
    I'd be really curious to try a medium M6 just to see the difference. I went out again in mine today and I love the feel of it. I feel I can make it do what I want and recover from almost anything. I never got that feeling in my medium Scott Spark. I know there's more than just size making a difference, but still.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    36
    Hey all. I am set on getting a Mach 6 and in the same boat as the OP on sizing, just up one. I am 6'1", 33" inseam, and 200lbs. My LBS has an XL demo that I took out over the weekend, and it was pretty damn awesome, but I'm thinking I might enjoy a L frame better, and they don't have a large for me to demo.

    When I first got the bike on the trail, it did feel a little big to me. My ride started out descending some steep technical rocky terrain, and I felt a little awkward at first (possibly because I am coming from a L Specialized SJ Evo 26"). Once I got to the climbing, the bike felt great, and after 30 min or so I was cleaning technical climbs that I had no chance at before. After an hour or so of climbing, it was fast technical rocky downhill and at this point i felt completely comfortable, and loved the performance of the bike. I was able to throw it around, and completely forgot about size. Actually I completely forgot about everything, until I hit the parking lot with a **** eating grin on my face.

    So point being, I am thinking that by switching to a Large, I may be sacrificing some climbing capability for an increase in maneuverability and "snappiness" on my descents, is that true? Or will I just be making myself more uncomfortable for no noticeable gain? Or will a large climb as well with all the advantages? Also, I like to run a 50mm or less stem, which the XL demo had. The XL was amazing, but if I am spending $6,000+ on a new build, I want to make sure I am getting the best fit possible.

    Anyone my size out there riding a Mach 6? What size? Any other thoughts or advice would be appreciated!

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,804
    Quote Originally Posted by nlyso View Post
    Hey all. I am set on getting a Mach 6 and in the same boat as the OP on sizing, just up one. I am 6'1", 33" inseam, and 200lbs. My LBS has an XL demo that I took out over the weekend, and it was pretty damn awesome, but I'm thinking I might enjoy a L frame better, and they don't have a large for me to demo.

    When I first got the bike on the trail, it did feel a little big to me. My ride started out descending some steep technical rocky terrain, and I felt a little awkward at first. Once I got to the climbing, the bike felt great, and after 30 min or so I was cleaning technical climbs that I had no chance at before. After an hour or so of climbing, it was fast technical rocky downhill and at this point i felt completely comfortable, and loved the performance of the bike. I was able to throw it around, and completely forgot about size. Actually I completely forgot about everything, until I hit the parking lot with a **** eating grin on my face.

    So point being, I am thinking that by switching to a Large, I may be sacrificing some climbing capability for an increase in maneuverability and "snappiness" on my descents, is that true? Or will I just be making myself more uncomfortable for no noticeable gain? Or will a large climb as well with all the advantages? Also, I like to run a 50mm or less stem, which the XL demo had. The XL was amazing, but if I am spending $6,000+ on a new build, I want to make sure I am getting the best fit possible.

    Anyone my size out there riding a Mach 6? What size? Any other thoughts or advice would be appreciated!
    I'm 5'11" 33" pants inseam. Riding a L with a 65mm stem and 740mm bars. The bike fits well, but just. If I was any taller I would have to go for an XL.

    I started out with a 50mm stem, but had to swap in a 65mm stem to get a bit more room.

    I could ride an XL no problem, but would go for a 50mm stem.

    I ride tight twisty forest trails which is why I went L. If I lived in the desert I'd be riding an XL.

    You definitely give up on manoeuvrability as you increase wheel base.

    I don't see the shorter wheelbase as a detriment to climbing.

    Given that you want to run a 50mm stem I'd go with the XL - with of course all the usual YMMV cautions about fit advice from the internet.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    69
    yeah, you should be careful about sizing, sure. I am 6' even and 33" inseam and I'm on a large. It's super comfortable and just right for me. I wouldn't think the 1" taller would make for an XL size.
    I have too many bikes, but it's not enough

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,804
    Quote Originally Posted by deerock View Post
    yeah, you should be careful about sizing, sure. I am 6' even and 33" inseam and I'm on a large. It's super comfortable and just right for me. I wouldn't think the 1" taller would make for an XL size.
    What size stem are you using?
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    69
    an 80 stem
    I have too many bikes, but it's not enough

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,804
    Quote Originally Posted by deerock View Post
    an 80 stem
    That's important info. Nylso is taller than you and wants to use a stem that's 30mm shorter or even shorter than that.

    Every 25mm difference is like changing a frame size up or down.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    5

    What size Mach 6

    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I'm 5'11" 33" pants inseam. Riding a L with a 65mm stem and 740mm bars. The bike fits well, but just. If I was any taller I would have to go for an XL.

    I started out with a 50mm stem, but had to swap in a 65mm stem to get a bit more room.

    I could ride an XL no problem, but would go for a 50mm stem.

    I ride tight twisty forest trails which is why I went L. If I lived in the desert I'd be riding an XL.

    You definitely give up on manoeuvrability as you increase wheel base.

    I don't see the shorter wheelbase as a detriment to climbing.

    Given that you want to run a 50mm stem I'd go with the XL - with of course all the usual YMMV cautions about fit advice from the internet.
    I am 5:10,5, I had a medium 5,7 with 65mm stem with 740 bars, it was borderline climbing steep technical climbs, I was concerned about slack seat post angle On M6.....I tested a large and it was a lot of bike, I also then managed to test a medium. I went for the medium and it was 100% the correct decision. I run the same 65mm stem and it climbs better than the 5,7. The set up is awesome.....don't go big if you don't have to, the longer TT sorts out the cramped feeling I had on the 5,7 and the slack seat post angle compliments the bike, as the higher you lift your seat the further the reach is between bars and seat without compromising climbing ability.....it all just works, what an awesome bike 100% happy.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    36
    Thanks for all the advice. Vic - I never really thought about stem lengths in that way, but it makes sense. I also see sa68's point about a slack SA, with seat all the way up for climbing. I've been stalking around the Pivot forums for a while, and read all the talk about the slack SA, but it never really clicked till just now! Thanks!

    I just found out the Pivot demo crew is going to be in town this Sunday, so I should get my chance to ride a large! I'll report back with my observations, and thoughts.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,804
    Quote Originally Posted by nlyso View Post
    Thanks for all the advice. Vic - I never really thought about stem lengths in that way, but it makes sense. I also see sa68's point about a slack SA, with seat all the way up for climbing. I've been stalking around the Pivot forums for a while, and read all the talk about the slack SA, but it never really clicked till just now! Thanks!

    I just found out the Pivot demo crew is going to be in town this Sunday, so I should get my chance to ride a large! I'll report back with my observations, and thoughts.
    A demo?...sweet that will answer a lot of questions - especially if they have a full size range for you to try out...

    Don't let the slack STA hypothesizing by folks who haven't spent a decent amount of time on the bike influence you. I'm climbing at a whole new level on the Mach 6 on techy terrain and the slack STA feels just great when pedalling the flats.

    Just a thought - if you want to try a short stem maybe bring one with you to the demo. I'm not sure what size is stock on the M6, but I want to say it's on the longer side.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    A demo?...sweet that will answer a lot of questions - especially if they have a full size range for you to try out...

    Don't let the slack STA hypothesizing by folks who haven't spent a decent amount of time on the bike influence you. I'm climbing at a whole new level on the Mach 6 on techy terrain and the slack STA feels just great when pedalling the flats.

    Just a thought - if you want to try a short stem maybe bring one with you to the demo. I'm not sure what size is stock on the M6, but I want to say it's on the longer side.
    Great idea, pretty sure the stock build comes with an 80mm. I'll pull my 50mm off my current bike. Hopefully they'll be okay with that.

    I have no problems with the slack STA, and I agree with:
    Quote Originally Posted by miles e View Post
    The Mach 6 (like most Pivots) has a pretty slack seat tube angle, effectively decreasing reach for a given top tube length. I haven't heard the rationale for this from Pivot, but I suspect it is attributable at least in part to the inherent antisquat nature of the DW Link suspension.

    Designs like the Kona and Knolly will sink into their travel more when climbing, and a steep seat tube angle helps keep the riders weight from sliding too far back. The Pivot will ride higher in its travel, allowing the front to be more easily weighted under these circumstances.

    I happen to like Pivot's approach, as a) it allows for a shorter wheelbase (long reach/short stems are nice to a point, but eventually the wheelbase can become unwieldy) b) it allows for zero offset seat posts without putting the rider in a TT position at full extension.
    I see now that with a slack seat tube, you gain reach as the seat is raised for climbing. When the seat is all the way down, the cockpit may very well be too small for me, but who cares? If I have the seat all the way down, I am in downhill mode and don't sit at all anyways - if anything, it will get the seat more out of the way for me to get behind it when I need to be. Then with the touch of a button (modern dropper posts are amazing, and such an asset to enduro style riding) I pop the seat up, and not only put my legs in climbing position, but with the slack STA, increase reach and put my whole body back in a better seated riding position. At least I think that is the logic behind it, and it seems to make sense.

    Either way, I loved the XL, so if the L feels cramped, I am perfectly happy going with the XL. Just wanted to see if I can get a bit more out of a Large frame, and I am happy I get to give the Large a real demo ride now before deciding!

    Now... Next big decision... a 1x or 2x drive train... Hmmmm... Different thread.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,562

    Re: Mach 6 Frame size

    Quote Originally Posted by nlyso View Post
    Great idea, pretty sure the stock build comes with an 80mm. I'll pull my 50mm off my current bike. Hopefully they'll be okay with that.

    I have no problems with the slack STA, and I agree with:


    I see now that with a slack seat tube, you gain reach as the seat is raised for climbing. When the seat is all the way down, the cockpit may very well be too small for me, but who cares? If I have the seat all the way down, I am in downhill mode and don't sit at all anyways - if anything, it will get the seat more out of the way for me to get behind it when I need to be. Then with the touch of a button (modern dropper posts are amazing, and such an asset to enduro style riding) I pop the seat up, and not only put my legs in climbing position, but with the slack STA, increase reach and put my whole body back in a better seated riding position. At least I think that is the logic behind it, and it seems to make sense.

    Either way, I loved the XL, so if the L feels cramped, I am perfectly happy going with the XL. Just wanted to see if I can get a bit more out of a Large frame, and I am happy I get to give the Large a real demo ride now before deciding!

    Now... Next big decision... a 1x or 2x drive train... Hmmmm... Different thread.
    Reach doesn't change based on the saddle height. Reach is a constant measurement.
    Google reach and stack...

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    Reach doesn't change based on the saddle height. Reach is a constant measurement.
    Google reach and stack...
    You are right. What is the correct term for the distance from saddle position to head tube? Or is there one? I guess that's the measurement I have been mistakenly calling reach.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    36
    Going with the XL frame. It felt more comfortable and natural.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    4,277
    XL makes sense. The M6 is a little bit of new school (66 HA/16.9 CS) and a little bit of old school (short reach) and a whole lotta Rock and Roll!

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

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
  •