Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 130
  1. #1
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    558

    RFX Tweener Anguish

    Sorry - a 'what size?' question

    At 5'10" I'm very happy on a large Czar with a 80mm stem. According to Turner's sizing chart, I should be on a large RFX. Although chat on the RFX thread suggests going for a smaller frame size might be the preferred option.

    I'll happily admit that most of the time I'll be overbiked. So with a trail-build emphasis: medium and flickable, or large and roomier? What are you other tweener guys and girls thinking? Any of the people who demo'd at Outerbike care to chime in?

    I'm in the UK and demo'ing both sizes is unlikely to be an option.

    And the worst of it? The UK importer has RFXs IN STOCK RIGHT NOW SO IT IS BURNING A HOLE IN MY BRAIN . Please Help-a-Homer.
    'I've got a bike, you can ride it if you like. It's got a basket, a bell that rings, and things to make it look good' - Syd B

  2. #2
    Committed
    Reputation: 1soulrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,735
    Medium.
    I'm a little bit taller than you and have ridden medium Turners for years, recently (last few years) I have switched to large frames.
    I like the large for high speed rocky descending and stretched out climbing, but the medium feels better for all around riding.
    Now get on down there and grab one of those RFXs while you can!

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by 1soulrider View Post
    Medium.
    I'm a little bit taller than you and have ridden medium Turners for years, recently (last few years) I have switched to large frames.
    I like the large for high speed rocky descending and stretched out climbing, but the medium feels better for all around riding.
    Now get on down there and grab one of those RFXs while you can!

    w/ your experience w/ Turners, how 'bout listing the difference or exact WB specs. w/ the same fork on the 2 sizes?, since we all know you can't get that info from the co. website
    breezy shade

  4. #4
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    558
    Thanks 1SR. My thinking is tending that way too, the more and more I look at the geo specs. The reach numbers between my current bike and medium RFX aren't a massive difference and going from 720mm bars (Czar) to wider bars on the RFX kind of reduces the issue anyway.

    Might be heading down my local Turner dealer tomorrow...Not only that, I have a new couch upon which to display the frame. That's fate, surely
    'I've got a bike, you can ride it if you like. It's got a basket, a bell that rings, and things to make it look good' - Syd B

  5. #5
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,120
    Rider height alone is not a good measurement of fit. Compare what you currently have, know and like and translate that to what you want (including stem length).
    I like 'em low, long, slack and playful

  6. #6
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    558
    Rider height alone is not a good measurement of fit. Compare what you currently have, know and like and translate that to what you want (including stem length).
    Agreed. But what I have now, know and like, is a rapid 29er xc bike...and I want something to do other types of riding with. I could put wide bars and a short stem (and a 120mm Pike) on the Czar, but I'm becoming a believer in having the right tool for the job. I spent a week last summer at a bikepark in the Alps, and realised there needed to be a bigger-travel bike in my life! Also, I'm not going to be racing so much next year, and just what to have mawr fun.
    'I've got a bike, you can ride it if you like. It's got a basket, a bell that rings, and things to make it look good' - Syd B

  7. #7
    Now with flavor!!
    Reputation: kidwoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    5,491
    If you're going to keep your czar, I'd say get a large.
    STRAVA: Enabling dorks everywhere to get trails shut down........ all for the sake of a race on the internet.

  8. #8
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,120
    Quote Originally Posted by swan lee View Post
    Agreed. But what I have now, know and like, is a rapid 29er xc bike...and I want something to do other types of riding with. I could put wide bars and a short stem (and a 120mm Pike) on the Czar, but I'm becoming a believer in having the right tool for the job. I spent a week last summer at a bikepark in the Alps, and realised there needed to be a bigger-travel bike in my life! Also, I'm not going to be racing so much next year, and just what to have mawr fun.
    Glad you know what you're looking for, but that really doesn't directly correlate with proper bike fit

    Bike fit is mainly matching your torso length (hip to shoulder). Bar width tends to be personal preference blended with arm length/wingspan.

    The Competitive Cyclist bike fit calculator is a good tool:
    Bike Fit Calculator | Find Your Bike Size | Competitive Cyclist

    Using this tool 18 months ago confirmed what I was wondering... have I been riding the wrong size frame? I'm 5'10" and had always ridden Medium (17-18") frames. I had been noticing a stiff/sore lower back on longer rides.

    The CC bike fit calculator said I needed a 24.4-24.7" ETT! (I'm long in torso and arms, short inseam). Basically, I learned that I'm about 6'2" from the hip up.

    Now, both of my bikes are size Large (620-625mm/24.4-24.5" ETT) with 55-60mm stems. Back doesn't hurt anymore.

    This past weekend, I rode a buddy's Medium (and a big medium at that... 23.6" ETT) bike with a 60mm stem... and guess what, by mile 9, my lower back was getting stiff.
    I like 'em low, long, slack and playful

  9. #9
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,120
    Tell ya what, I'll compare the numbers for you:

    ETT Reach Stem Cockpit (ETT+stem) Total reach (Reach + stem)
    Czar 605 422 80 685 502
    RFX 620 439 60 680 499

    Now, if you run significantly wider bars on the RFX, you can also decrease the stem. Say you're running 720's on your Czar, I'd recommend 760-780 bars + 40-50mm stem on a size Large RFX
    I like 'em low, long, slack and playful

  10. #10
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    558
    If you're going to keep your czar, I'd say get a large.
    Now you've got me confused Kidwoo! I thought you were generally advocating for shorter wheelbases??

    Yes, I'll be keeping the Czar for occasional racing and faster trail rides. It's a phenomenally good bike for it's purpose.
    'I've got a bike, you can ride it if you like. It's got a basket, a bell that rings, and things to make it look good' - Syd B

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,576
    Surprisingly I agree with Kidd... When in doubt go up a size and down a stem length... been saying that for 20 years! This would put your reach closer to what the cool kids say you should be on and force your stem length to be in Style at every trail head world wide, even France! And Hokie points out this same idea, and based on his experience the bigger frame is the way to go at 5'10''.

    BUT, based on previous rants concerning sizing and who should ride what. My experience with the new RFX has been 100% of the time 'tweener riders are choosing the shorter reach version of the RFX, and keeping the shorter stems. The modern slack head angles and wider bar and mechanical trail created by 27.5 wheels as well as the centripetal forces of the bigger wheel makes a plenty stable bike and with more weight over the front wheel one can control it in the twisties instead of being dragged around by your nose.

    New thought, when ski width exploded from tooth picks to shapely logs underfoot everyone went down in length. As a small guy I used to ski 200-207s depending on construction, some of my taller friends were never under 207.. but now I have 174-181s. Of course the total bad asses that reside at every mountain and put 100 days a year in probably have a different view of proper length, but for Most people most of the time we are now on shorter skis. Maybe this is applicable to what I have been witnessing or maybe not...



    DT

  12. #12
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    558
    Now, if you run significantly wider bars on the RFX, you can also decrease the stem. Say you're running 720's on your Czar, I'd recommend 760-780 bars + 40-50mm stem on a size Large RFX
    Thanks Hokie!!
    Czar is exactly that - 720 bars, and 80mm 11 degree neg rise stem.
    I have a 50mm stem and 780 bars already for a RFX build. So in terms of sitting on the bike, they'd probably even out i.e my back would be at similar relative angle. But although I'll be doing lots of climbing on the bigger bike, the emphasis will be on heading downhill with the biggest grin on my face.
    'I've got a bike, you can ride it if you like. It's got a basket, a bell that rings, and things to make it look good' - Syd B

  13. #13
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,120
    Quote Originally Posted by swan lee View Post
    Now you've got me confused Kidwoo! I thought you were generally advocating for shorter wheelbases??

    Yes, I'll be keeping the Czar for occasional racing and faster trail rides. It's a phenomenally good bike for it's purpose.
    Is your goal a short wheel base or best fit?

    Again, check your measurements with the CC fit calculator and then post back up.

    At a minimum: inseam (riding or jeans?) & approximate arm/torso length?

    For example:

    I'm 5'10"
    But I wear 30" inseam jeans (32" riding inseam)
    I wear Medium-Tall (35" sleeve length) dress shirts. If I wear normal length Medium dress shirts, they don't stay tucked in (as I have a longer torso for my height)

    I find 24.4-24.5" ETT (and 17.3-17.5" reach) fits great with a 50-60mm stem
    I like 'em low, long, slack and playful

  14. #14
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    558
    DT, thanks for your equivocal post ;-) It's the second scenario that has been making me think differently. Before the RFX thread blew up into a sizing debate last week, I'd been all in for ordering a large.

    Guys, I really appreciate all the input. I've not been able to type fast enough to respond to replies as they come in. Just shows what a fantastic resource this forum is. Cheers.
    'I've got a bike, you can ride it if you like. It's got a basket, a bell that rings, and things to make it look good' - Syd B

  15. #15
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    558
    Again, check your measurements with the CC fit calculator and then post back up.
    CC fit calculator says VTT of 23.3-23.7, with a 70mm stem. That puts me on a medium RFX but with an 'unfashionable' stem length. I reckon I can live with that particular style faux pas, even when I go to France.

    'I've got a bike, you can ride it if you like. It's got a basket, a bell that rings, and things to make it look good' - Syd B

  16. #16
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,120
    Quote Originally Posted by swan lee View Post
    CC fit calculator says VTT of 23.3-23.7, with a 70mm stem. That puts me on a medium RFX but with an 'unfashionable' stem length. I reckon I can live with that particular style faux pas, even when I go to France.

    Funny how two 5'10" riders can have completely different fits!

    (Or, show's how oddly proportioned that I am! lol)

    EDIT: BTW, the CC fit calculator says I need a 100mm stem. Yeah, right.
    I like 'em low, long, slack and playful

  17. #17
    Now with flavor!!
    Reputation: kidwoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    5,491
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes View Post
    Surprisingly I agree with Kidd...
    Aw, come on, that shouldn't be surprising, I've pretty much always agreed with your sizing recs. I just don't use stems longer than 50mm usually.

    Quote Originally Posted by swan lee View Post
    Now you've got me confused Kidwoo! I thought you were generally advocating for shorter wheelbases??
    Only in the context of bikes coming longer PLUS wider bars, PLUS slacker headangles (and yeah to a degree of the more sluggish handling of 27.5 wheels as the new 'standard'). It's mostly just a response to people like jazznova who obsess so hard over millimeters of butt to hand measurements that the effects of how a bike HANDLES (not 'fits') often gets ignored here.

    But that's why I asked if you were keeping the czar. If not and the RFX would be your only trail bike they yeah, I'd say go shorter so it stays functional and fun below 30mph. But you mentioned bike parks and if this is going to be your second 'bigger purpose' trail bike, then yeah get something that highlights the difference between the two......which to me would be big and stable when you want to scare yourself.
    STRAVA: Enabling dorks everywhere to get trails shut down........ all for the sake of a race on the internet.

  18. #18
    Kiwi that Flew
    Reputation: deanopatoni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    733

    RFX Tweener Anguish

    5'9" with 32 inseam and long arms - CC put me at 24.5in VTT and 42-76mm stem (gravity) OR 77-100mm (all-m).

    I like wide bars and short stems. Currently have 800bar/50stem on 5Spot and 750/50 on Flux, both medium frames. But - as I'm used to this size I would probably find a large RFX quite a change.
    Swan - Like Kid said, a large RFX would better compliment your large Czar imo.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: miles e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,951
    Quote Originally Posted by kidwoo View Post
    But that's why I asked if you were keeping the czar. If not and the RFX would be your only trail bike they yeah, I'd say go shorter so it stays functional and fun below 30mph.
    Same idea, but looking at it from the other end: I could have gone either L or XL on my Czar, but went L in no small part due to the fact that I knew I would have a longer travel bike as well, and wanted to keep the Czar snappy handling and more XC oriented. Looking forward to having a L RFX to go with it!
    ''It seems like a bit of a trend, everyone trying to make things longer over the last couple of years" Sam Hill

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,288
    Personally, if the stand over of the large is acceptable I'd go with that. 70mmm stem on a med or 40-50m on a large to give a similar saddle-to-bar distance, my preference for a bike like this would certainly be for the shorter stem and better position for descending. I've gone from a L 5spot to a L Warden and haven't found the extra length to be as cumbersome on our tighter trails as the naysayers would have you believe. I wouldn't expect the extra inch of wheelbase between the M and L RFX to be a huge advantage/disadvantage either way, it's only about a 2.5% increase.

    But the best thing would be to ride them both, if possible! I'm purely speculating based on my personal preferences and limited experience with the recent shift from a 5-year-old bike to a new one that fully embraces the "modern" geometry thing...

  21. #21
    ~~~~~~~~
    Reputation: airwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,876
    This discussion should be more about what kind of trails and rider? Are you more willing to suffer the long bike when things get tighter and slower or suffer the short bike when it's straight and fast. If you can't ride that long bike smooth it's going to take more out of you.

  22. #22
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    558
    This discussion should be more about what kind of trails and rider? Are you more willing to suffer the long bike when things get tighter and slower or suffer the short bike when it's straight and fast. If you can't ride that long bike smooth it's going to take more out of you.
    The majority of the riding in the southwest of the UK where I live tends toward tighter and slower. We simply don't have the elevation for long, straight, high-speed descents (well, maybe one or two!). If I were going to the Alps a lot I'd be getting the large, but sadly that's unlikely!

    I've previously found a large Sultan with 140mm Pike a bit barge-like on these local trails. The large Czar handles the tight stuff fine, but it has a fairly low front end so you can load it nicely through the turns. The medium RFX has a longer wheelbase than the large Czar, but then it's a different bike for a different style of riding, so the comparison doesn't really stack up...As DavidR suggests, the only real solution would be to try both .... I reckon I'd be lucky if there was a single demo bike yet in the entire UK though!
    'I've got a bike, you can ride it if you like. It's got a basket, a bell that rings, and things to make it look good' - Syd B

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by swan lee View Post
    The majority of the riding in the southwest of the UK where I live tends toward tighter and slower. We simply don't have the elevation for long, straight, high-speed descents (well, maybe one or two!). If I were going to the Alps a lot I'd be getting the large, but sadly that's unlikely!

    I've previously found a large Sultan with 140mm Pike a bit barge-like on these local trails. The large Czar handles the tight stuff fine, but it has a fairly low front end so you can load it nicely through the turns.

    """The medium RFX has a longer wheelbase than the large Czar, """/how do you know?

    but then it's a different bike for a different style of riding, so the comparison doesn't really stack up...As DavidR suggests, the only real solution would be to try both .... I reckon I'd be lucky if there was a single demo bike yet in the entire UK though!
    ???
    breezy shade

  24. #24
    Kiwi that Flew
    Reputation: deanopatoni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    733

    RFX Tweener Anguish

    Or what side on the Atlantic you are on??
    Most of the bikes being built in Europe have longer reach's compared to most US producers.

    Edit: dang-it. Swan Lee got his post out well before I could finish typing. ^^What he said^^

  25. #25
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    558
    ???
    WB for RFX is now listed on Turner's site.

    Deano: east side - UK.
    'I've got a bike, you can ride it if you like. It's got a basket, a bell that rings, and things to make it look good' - Syd B

  26. #26
    Now with flavor!!
    Reputation: kidwoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    5,491
    Quote Originally Posted by swan lee View Post
    WB for RFX is now listed on Turner's site.

    Whoa!

    Praise Jesus!
    STRAVA: Enabling dorks everywhere to get trails shut down........ all for the sake of a race on the internet.

  27. #27
    Kiwi that Flew
    Reputation: deanopatoni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by swan lee View Post
    WB for RFX is now listed on Turner's site.

    Deano: east side - UK.
    Cheers for the WB tip.

    Bristol here...

    Another Edit: here's a graph of the frames I have been comparing....some have crazy long reach's.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails RFX Tweener Anguish-img_1950.jpg  


  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,576
    Reach numbers are only applicable when standing. When sitting, and that is most riders most of the time, even downhill with the seat down. Top Tube is still the primary number that creates the 'feel' of how stretched out one is, or not. So TT + Stem + Stack equals bendy mid back, bend at hip, no bend or with the right handlebar easy rider!

    When the reach is stretched way out there (Mondraker) one has to get forward to cover the front tire. The only method that works is rider must be STANDING, and aggressively leaning forward with chin over fork crown, like the video and racer stars. This aggressive style creates a pushing of the front wheel down and tight into the turn with rear wheel drifting WIDER and showering the country side with gravel. So, to cover the difference in style between full on racers and riders Canyon makes their enduro bike in 2 geometries.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,585
    Quote Originally Posted by kidwoo View Post
    Aw, come on, that shouldn't be surprising, I've pretty much always agreed with your sizing recs. I just don't use stems longer than 50mm usually.



    Only in the context of bikes coming longer PLUS wider bars, PLUS slacker headangles (and yeah to a degree of the more sluggish handling of 27.5 wheels as the new 'standard'). It's mostly just a response to people like jazznova who obsess so hard over millimeters of butt to hand measurements that the effects of how a bike HANDLES (not 'fits') often gets ignored here.

    But that's why I asked if you were keeping the czar. If not and the RFX would be your only trail bike they yeah, I'd say go shorter so it stays functional and fun below 30mph. But you mentioned bike parks and if this is going to be your second 'bigger purpose' trail bike, then yeah get something that highlights the difference between the two......which to me would be big and stable when you want to scare yourself.
    Jazzanova, not jazznova

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by kidwoo View Post
    Whoa!

    Praise Jesus!
    ya, no shite!!! truly stunning !!
    breezy shade

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,585
    Quote Originally Posted by David R View Post
    Personally, if the stand over of the large is acceptable I'd go with that. 70mmm stem on a med or 40-50m on a large to give a similar saddle-to-bar distance, my preference for a bike like this would certainly be for the shorter stem and better position for descending. I've gone from a L 5spot to a L Warden and haven't found the extra length to be as cumbersome on our tighter trails as the naysayers would have you believe. I wouldn't expect the extra inch of wheelbase between the M and L RFX to be a huge advantage/disadvantage either way, it's only about a 2.5% increase.

    But the best thing would be to ride them both, if possible! I'm purely speculating based on my personal preferences and limited experience with the recent shift from a 5-year-old bike to a new one that fully embraces the "modern" geometry thing...
    Agree 100%.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    315
    I'm 5'10" and ride a large 3.1 burner with a 50mm stem. which has the same top tube as the RFX. Corners great and wouldn't think of running a smaller frame.

  33. #33
    Kiwi that Flew
    Reputation: deanopatoni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes View Post
    Reach numbers are only applicable when standing. When sitting, and that is most riders most of the time, even downhill with the seat down.....Canyon makes their enduro bike in 2 geometries.
    True. Interestingly the Canyon geo and sizing was part of the reason that I started my database of frame geo comparisons. Their 'Race' geo appears to an upsized frame with a short stem. They are also suggesting that the Race geo is for someone who is a racer or racer at heart and always giving it 100% commitment. This may not suit everyone, so it's best to test a bike for yourself, but this is not always possible...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  34. #34
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    558

    Not sure if I'm getting there or not...

    I really appreciate everyone's comments, thanks so much for your input.

    I'm pretty much just as confused as I was though

    The majority seem to be in favour of large frame, small stem, but the CC fit calculator and DT himself suggesting I may be better off on a medium frame with a slightly longer stem (60-70mm, not exactly a tiller). I have to say my experiences of a long wheelbase bike on my local trails are what's swinging me most toward a medium. To paraphrase DT, I'm not a rider who routinely gets to lick the fork-arch as I practically endo round corners scaring the wildlife with my roost-rain. I do stand up and move the bike around and try to 'ride the fork' as best I can, but I'm not kidding myself I'm a Pinkbike video shredder.

    So, here it is. The medium frame has similar reach to the large sultan I used to ride (that's okay, and I used a 50mm stem on that), but the stack is way lower. I guess that would be an easy fix with riser bars. My current Czar (again, which feels great) is higher stack but then I've got the stem/bars slammed xc style. Hmmm, so it's going to be a mediu...no, wait, a larg...aargh...just shoot me. Neither's going to be a pony, so maybe I should just shut up, get the ££s out and get on....
    'I've got a bike, you can ride it if you like. It's got a basket, a bell that rings, and things to make it look good' - Syd B

  35. #35
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,120
    Don't neuter your RFX by runing a 70mm stem. I recommended the CC fit calculator as a baseline reference )so you understand how your body is proportioned).

    large and 50mm stem
    I like 'em low, long, slack and playful

  36. #36
    Kiwi that Flew
    Reputation: deanopatoni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    733

    RFX Tweener Anguish

    Quote Originally Posted by swan lee View Post
    I really appreciate everyone's comments, thanks so much for your input.

    I'm pretty much just as confused as I was though

    The majority seem to be in favour of large frame, small stem, but the CC fit calculator and DT himself suggesting I may be better off on a medium frame with a slightly longer stem (60-70mm, not exactly a tiller). I have to say my experiences of a long wheelbase bike on my local trails are what's swinging me most toward a medium. To paraphrase DT, I'm not a rider who routinely gets to lick the fork-arch as I practically endo round corners scaring the wildlife with my roost-rain. I do stand up and move the bike around and try to 'ride the fork' as best I can, but I'm not kidding myself I'm a Pinkbike video shredder.

    So, here it is. The medium frame has similar reach to the large sultan I used to ride (that's okay, and I used a 50mm stem on that), but the stack is way lower. I guess that would be an easy fix with riser bars. My current Czar (again, which feels great) is higher stack but then I've got the stem/bars slammed xc style. Hmmm, so it's going to be a mediu...no, wait, a larg...aargh...just shoot me. Neither's going to be a pony, so maybe I should just shut up, get the ££s out and get on....
    Swan - I've have compared the Sultan Lrg vs RFX med reach to stack.


    And a large RFX would need a 40mm stem and 15mm of packers/ or bar rise to align with your large sultan.
    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  37. #37
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    558
    That's great Deano thanks. Nice comparisons - Puts the various post-it notes I've got of different bike-geo's to shame!

    The fit of the Sultan was good, it was the handling that felt long. I'm not sure about how far I can compare a 140mm-forked 125mm-travel 29er steamroller to a balanced 160mm travel enduro-trail slayer.

    There's got to be a balance between handling and fit...I dunno, it's too wooly to call it feel? - If I was worried too much about feel I should be on 853 steel and have a massive beard ;-)

    Current large Czar: great fit, great handling = great feel
    Previous large Sultan: great fit, long handling = 'regally sedate' feel
    Medium RFX: wheelbase longer than the large Czar, tighter fit with a 50mm stem
    Large RFX: wheelbase longer than even a XL Sultan, roomy fit, needs <40mm stem
    'I've got a bike, you can ride it if you like. It's got a basket, a bell that rings, and things to make it look good' - Syd B

  38. #38
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,120
    And what we have here, friends, is a good example of analysis paralysis
    I like 'em low, long, slack and playful

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,585
    Quote Originally Posted by swan lee View Post
    That's great Deano thanks. Nice comparisons - Puts the various post-it notes I've got of different bike-geo's to shame!

    The fit of the Sultan was good, it was the handling that felt long. I'm not sure about how far I can compare a 140mm-forked 125mm-travel 29er steamroller to a balanced 160mm travel enduro-trail slayer.

    There's got to be a balance between handling and fit...I dunno, it's too wooly to call it feel? - If I was worried too much about feel I should be on 853 steel and have a massive beard ;-)

    Current large Czar: great fit, great handling = great feel
    Previous large Sultan: great fit, long handling = 'regally sedate' feel
    Medium RFX: wheelbase longer than the large Czar, tighter fit with a 50mm stem
    Large RFX: wheelbase longer than even a XL Sultan, roomy fit, needs <40mm stem
    Get the L.
    RFX is still on the shorter side comparing to most other bikes in the same category.
    At 5'10" you are a solid L on this bike.
    Dont focus on WB too much. The WB also feels different comparing to a 29er.

  40. #40
    Kiwi that Flew
    Reputation: deanopatoni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    Get the L.
    RFX is still on the shorter side comparing to most other bikes in the same category.
    At 5'10" you are a solid L on this bike.
    Dont focus on WB too much. The WB also feels different comparing to a 29er.
    ^^What Jazz said^^



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  41. #41
    Kiwi that Flew
    Reputation: deanopatoni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by swan lee View Post
    That's great Deano thanks. Nice comparisons - Puts the various post-it notes I've got of different bike-geo's to shame!
    Cheers Swan.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dogboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,331
    Quote Originally Posted by swan lee View Post
    The fit of the Sultan was good, it was the handling that felt long. I'm not sure about how far I can compare a 140mm-forked 125mm-travel 29er steamroller to a balanced 160mm travel enduro-trail slayer.

    Current large Czar: great fit, great handling = great feel
    Previous large Sultan: great fit, long handling = 'regally sedate' feel
    Medium RFX: wheelbase longer than the large Czar, tighter fit with a 50mm stem
    Large RFX: wheelbase longer than even a XL Sultan, roomy fit, needs <40mm stem
    I would attribute the handling of the Sultan almost entirely to the long chainstays. The large RFX, even with the longer wheelbase, is going to feel better/snappier than the Sultan.

  43. #43
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    558

    Freeze!

    And what we have here, friends, is a good example of analysis paralysis


    You're not wrong. I've gone and over-thunk it.
    'I've got a bike, you can ride it if you like. It's got a basket, a bell that rings, and things to make it look good' - Syd B

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    637
    I have a fit question as well and I have a large coming in the first shipment. I have a bike now that fits sweet and I was professionally fit to this bike and have tweaked it to perfection. 19 in ST w/ 73.5 SA, 23.8 TT, and a 90mm stem. Is this question as simple as doing the math on additional TT length and subtracting that from the stem? So the RFX has a 24.4 TT and thats an additional .6 inchs so I can subtract 15mm from my stem length? I would then be running a 75mm or maybe just drop to a 70 or does the fact that my current rig has a 69.5 HA and the RFX is 66 change this assumption? Bar width will be the same. Thoughts?

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    489
    Im 5'10" with a +2" reach....another thing to take into consideration when sizing for bikes not just your overall height but whats your reach? do you have long ape arms or a short t-rex reach?

    Over the years the bars have been getting wider and stems have been getting shorter on all my bikes, but also the terrain and my riding style has gotten more aggressive as well...Currently i'm on a 35mm stem with 30" wide bars. The bike just handles so much better. Will never go back to a longer stem. I've recently demoed bikes with longer stems even cross country bikes and I hate the way they handle with longer stems. If I were to purchase a xc bike someday I'm going to run a 35mm stem on it.

    So for me any future bike purchases will be based on keeping that 35mm stem length. Once you go short you never go back

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: miles e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,951
    Quote Originally Posted by artsn View Post
    does the fact that my current rig has a 69.5 HA and the RFX is 66 change this assumption? Bar width will be the same.
    How wide are your bars? Seems like there's a good chance they could be on the narrow side based on the HTA/stem length of your old bike.

    My rule of thumb is you want to go down 10mm in stem length for every 40mm you add in bar width. This of course is largely subjective, but you may be able to drop another 10 or 20mm in stem length just by going to a wider bar, and keep the overall fit pretty close.

    To your question, I'd say you can safely ignore HTA when it comes to exchanging TT length for stem length. Using reach & stack would be a much more precise way to compare, but if the STA is identical then TT length should still give you a fairly accurate idea of the distance to the bars.

    If anything, modern bikes with their typically taller stack figures will actually provide a bit more reach for a given combination of bar height & TT length (even between identical STA's), so another reason a shorter stem might work.
    ''It seems like a bit of a trend, everyone trying to make things longer over the last couple of years" Sam Hill

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by swan lee View Post


    You're not wrong. I've gone and over-thunk it.
    and what's really hilarious, is that no matter which one you buy, you'll always feel you should have got the other size!!!
    breezy shade

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    489
    RFX 10 commandments:

    1. Tho shall not run bars narrower than 30 inches
    2. Tho shall not run stems longer than 45mm
    3. Tho shall slay every trail and get airborne multiple times
    4. Tho shall not wear lycra while RFX'ing
    5. Tho shall not xc while RFX'ing
    6. Tho shall not covet neighbors bike
    7. Remember the shred keep it rowdy
    8.
    9.
    10.

    not sure what the rest would be, feel free to edit

  49. #49
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,120
    Quote Originally Posted by nhodge View Post
    and what's really hilarious, is that no matter which one you buy, you'll always feel you should have got the other size!!!
    Not me. I went Large with my Ibis HD3 and have never looked back

    EDIT: The RFX's geo is very, very similar to the HD3's (and the V2 Bronson, for that matter... and I guess the Intense Tracer T275 as well. Seems the bikes are all converging)

    Oh 1st world problems. Which amazing, carbon, dual link (VPP or DW) 150-160mm bike do we want to buy?

    For me, the answer is simple. Who has the best Customer Service and who offers a threaded/BSA bottom bracket (which is a whole other debate I don't intend to start in this thread)
    I like 'em low, long, slack and playful

  50. #50
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    558
    Oh 1st world problems. Which amazing, carbon, dual link (VPP or DW) 150-160mm bike do we want to buy?
    Yeah, I'm not complaining, it's part of the 'fun' obsessing over a new bike.

    That said, I listened to the Turner forum collective wisdom, and had settled on a large, went to my LBS only to find they're no longer dealing Turners. They would probably be able to sort a frame out for me with the importers, so all's not lost though. (I used to race for them, they are mates, and they do me a good deal).

    This weekend I'm going to demo a long and low bike with a 35mm stem (it's a short travel nu-school slack 29er)...not one I see myself buying but at least it will give me a feel for the new fashion in reach and stem-length...and by a process of exclusion should confirm me on the path of a large RFX. BOOM
    'I've got a bike, you can ride it if you like. It's got a basket, a bell that rings, and things to make it look good' - Syd B

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Sizing help for a Tweener
    By vaftocr in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-30-2015, 11:58 AM
  2. Waon wheels or Tweener wheels, what I Learned
    By Osco in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 09-13-2014, 02:49 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-11-2013, 07:20 PM
  4. El Mariachi Ti tweener sizing?
    By 45ronin in forum Salsa
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-31-2011, 10:31 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
  •