Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 130
  1. #1
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    565

    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
    1,770
    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
    1,778
    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
    565
    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
    4,509
    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 long, low, slack and playful

  6. #6
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    565
    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
    5,611
    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
    4,509
    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 long, low, slack and playful

  9. #9
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,509
    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 long, low, slack and playful

  10. #10
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    565
    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
    2,593
    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
    565
    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
    4,509
    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 long, low, slack and playful

  14. #14
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    565
    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
    565
    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
    4,509
    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 long, low, slack and playful

  17. #17
    Now with flavor!!
    Reputation: kidwoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    5,611
    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
    740

    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
    2,972
    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
    1,571
    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
    5,880
    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
    565
    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
    1,778
    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
    740

    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
    565
    ???
    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
    5,611
    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
    740
    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
    2,593
    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
    2,818
    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
    1,778
    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
    2,818
    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
    329
    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
    740
    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
    565

    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
    4,509
    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 long, low, slack and playful

  36. #36
    Kiwi that Flew
    Reputation: deanopatoni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    740

    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
    565
    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
    4,509
    And what we have here, friends, is a good example of analysis paralysis
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,818
    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
    740
    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
    740
    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
    1,438
    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
    565

    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
    674
    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
    627
    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
    2,972
    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
    1,778
    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
    627
    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
    4,509
    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 long, low, slack and playful

  50. #50
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    565
    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

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by swan lee View Post
    Y
    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
    ^be careful with this, these low,slack,short travel 29ers are capable and fun! I've been demoing longer travel 27.5's looking for the next, more fun bike and can't seem to displace my non-botique process 111.

  52. #52
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by ripley View Post
    ^be careful with this, these low,slack,short travel 29ers are capable and fun! I've been demoing longer travel 27.5's looking for the next, more fun bike and can't seem to displace my non-botique process 111.
    I hear you! But I'm after super plush and 115mm of rear travel (Smuggler) is unlikely to cut it, no matter how sorted it is. And I want a good margin of difference from my Czar. Still, I'll keep an open mind....
    '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

  53. #53
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    27,348
    I think a stigma is attached to going with the larger frame. Back when mountain biking started, going to a large frame often meant a ridiculous 8" long head tube and a top tube joining the seat tube well above your nuts, but those days are long gone, as are the days of 140mm stems. Now, with modern short stems, you can usually make a large frame a good bit smaller, but it's hard to make a small frame swell up to run as much exposed seatpost as you need for climbing, and when you try, you are putting way too much leverage on the seat tube with that super-long seatpost. I got caught up in this with my 6pack, which was a blast, but it was just a little too small and I ran too long of a seatpost. Large RFX was a much better fit for me. I'm 5' 10.75". If I was in the OP shoes, it would be a no-brainer based on my experience to get the large. I'm on a Medium Spec Enduro and I'm really starting to feel the cramp compared to my "L" sized fatbike, which just feels so much better for riding due to the size of the frame. I'm heavily considering a carbon RFX due to no real competition for decent-pedaling aggressive 29ers that shave a few pounds (long chainstay bikes not considered). The RFX-C would be a known quantity for me and a no-brainer for size large.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  54. #54
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    565
    Cheers Jayem. The view of size-up and shorten-stem seems to be very much the favoured one, and with lots of good reasons.
    FWIW I rode a long/low 29er with a 35mm stem at the weekend and didn't get on with it well. It felt great on skill-flattering open trails, but as soon as it got properly off-piste into the tight and rooty stuff it felt overly long.
    I get the short stem thing, I can feel its benefits...I just think you have to be riding full-on most of the time to make it work. Makes sense for enduro racing, but maybe less so for slither-tech inching-your-way-through stuff.

    I realise that the only proper solution to my eRFX-c analysis is a test ride. Maybe I need to persuade my wife that we should go to California for a holiday, maybe somewhere a little south of LA.......
    '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

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,593
    Please come on over to the shop and demo them back to back, anyone! Swan, your findings of the long 29r are what we are finding. It is still about the front wheel, not how short the stem is.

    This past weekend in Tucson on some tight angle switchbacks in cactus and sharp rock lined turns, blind trail due to zigs and zags and grasses, riders had more control over the bike if it was not upsized. If it were not for the constant craggy rock, an old Flux would have shreaded, but.... the trails were rocky, and in many cases riding down natural stair cases of boulders, the slack HA angle and long travel of a modern enduro bike were appreciated!

    When my sons were in high school it was cool to wear shoes a couple sizes too small cause they looked cool. I am glad they have moved on in their life and realize that shoes are first a 'fit' item, second, a style piece.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by swan lee View Post
    Cheers Jayem. The view of size-up and shorten-stem seems to be very much the favoured one, and with lots of good reasons.
    FWIW I rode a long/low 29er with a 35mm stem at the weekend and didn't get on with it well. It felt great on skill-flattering open trails, but as soon as it got properly off-piste into the tight and rooty stuff it felt overly long.
    I get the short stem thing, I can feel its benefits...I just think you have to be riding full-on most of the time to make it work. Makes sense for enduro racing, but maybe less so for slither-tech inching-your-way-through stuff.

    I realise that the only proper solution to my eRFX-c analysis is a test ride. Maybe I need to persuade my wife that we should go to California for a holiday, maybe somewhere a little south of LA.......
    What I found out is that the lenght of a bike is felt more on a 29er.
    Going with a larger 650b frame will be effected less than upsizing a 29er...

  57. #57
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    565
    What I found out is that the lenght of a bike is felt more on a 29er.
    Going with a larger 650b frame will be effected less than upsizing a 29er...
    Yes, interesting point. Having big gyroscopic forces at the ends is going to make it feel longer*

    *n.b I have no real idea what I'm talking about, I just go by feel...
    '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

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,938
    5'10" rider here with bike shoes on (5'9" without) and large all day with 50 stem for me as well who rides a lot of tight, twisty techy trails mostly in the late fall to late spring (most of year) and steeper, faster terrain mostly in the summer. I am on large V1 Bronson w/50 stem (digging on RFX) and bike feels a little crammed at times (seat all the way back). Prior bike was medium Rune V2 with 65 stem that was only suitable descending really tight, techy, steep, off camber lines. uncomfortable and laborious for any pedaling/climbing due to poor fit. I will never go back to a medium, ever. Larger bikes are usually faster, more stable, more comfortable pedalling/seated climbing and can still be fairly playful if the geometry is done right. FWIW, WB of large RFX is still much shorter than large Nomad 3.

  59. #59
    Kiwi that Flew
    Reputation: deanopatoni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    740

    RFX Tweener Anguish

    So to conclude IMHO - if you really ARE a tweener OR very close to being one and you have long arms, then you SHOULD size up (unless you also really like stems longer than 50mm).

    Do so for fit and not for fashion.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by deanopatoni; 11-11-2015 at 06:28 AM.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    193
    I don't get this size up thing, I'm 5'9" and have a medium burner, with a 60mm stem i cannot get far enough back during the really steep parts, i currently run 35mm stem on it.. if you go large and 50mm stem that is quite a bit larger and you're not that much bigger than me.. (750 bars)

    Do you not ride steep? Are you super aggressive when riding? I cannot figure out how that would work out well..

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by AdakaR View Post
    I don't get this size up thing, I'm 5'9" and have a medium burner, with a 60mm stem i cannot get far enough back during the really steep parts, i currently run 35mm stem on it.. if you go large and 50mm stem that is quite a bit larger and you're not that much bigger than me.. (750 bars)

    Do you not ride steep? Are you super aggressive when riding? I cannot figure out how that would work out well..
    I feel like I can descend steep stuff better on my large Flux than I could on my medium Spot. I only have to let the bike pivot under me and let the bike shift slightly forward now instead of getting all the way behind the seat. I feel like I have much more control of where the bike is going now. YMMV

  62. #62
    Committed
    Reputation: 1soulrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,770
    For what its worth....

    I think a few factors play into this; riding style is one. Long torso vs long legs. What you are used and comfortable with. What type of terrain and riding you do most often.

    For me the switch to large has been enjoyable, and this is after years on medium Turners and advocating tweeners to size down. I always enjoyed the playfulness of the medium frames. The amount of exposed seatpost was a bit comical.

    Couple of years back I was starting to ride again after a injury forced me off the bike for several months. I noticed how cramped I felt on the bike, and this with the seat all the way back in the post and a 70mm stem.

    I was about to buy a new frame so I gave the large a go with a 60mm stem. I loved it from the first ride, the fit was much more comfortable. The added stability was welcome and I didn't feel like I gave up much nimbleness. I like fast rough riding and the bigger frame worked very well in this arena for me.


    My RFX (any day now!) is a large and I'll run a 50mm stem and a 1 degree slacker headset.

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,571
    Quote Originally Posted by AdakaR View Post
    I don't get this size up thing, I'm 5'9" and have a medium burner, with a 60mm stem i cannot get far enough back during the really steep parts, i currently run 35mm stem on it.. if you go large and 50mm stem that is quite a bit larger and you're not that much bigger than me.. (750 bars)
    The increase in length between a medium and a large is all in front of the BB, chainstay lengths are the same, so if the seat-to-bar distance is kept similar (with a shorter stem on the large frame) your weight will be further back behind the front axle on the steep stuff. (at least thats how it seems to me!)
    Of course height is only one measurement, arm length will also play a part in what you're describing.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dude!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,022
    1soulrider - how tall are you?

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    102
    Great discussion all. Lots of good perspectives, ...most helpful, keep it up.

    I too am a tweener and live on the east coast of Canada so there is no chance of having the luxury of testing riding the RFX before I make a decision; every bit of info here helps.

    fyi, there is a great thread somebody recently started: New RFX

    Hopefully were going to start seeing people reporting in on their actual longer-term impressions.

  66. #66
    Committed
    Reputation: 1soulrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,770
    Quote Originally Posted by Dude! View Post
    1soulrider - how tall are you?
    5' 10.5"

  67. #67
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    565
    Great discussion all. Lots of good perspectives, ...most helpful, keep it up.
    Yes, everyone but the bike designer himself seems to be saying 'get a large'

    But, it's also a really interesting discussion on fit and trends generally, I've never thought before about all the different factors this thread is throwing up...
    '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

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by swan lee View Post
    Yes, everyone but the bike designer himself seems to be saying 'get a large'

    But, it's also a really interesting discussion on fit and trends generally, I've never thought before about all the different factors this thread is throwing up...
    Check the post #11...

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    2
    I'm 5-10 and I would get a large RFX, ideally I would like a XXL with a L seat-tube. I've got a mondraker and went on the Nicolai Mojo GeoMetron (which is much larger than a XL RFX) and it felt great, so un-phased / balanced. My old Turner 5spot (Medium) feels really small now. For me I really like longer bikes now, I'm glad I had the opportunity to demo these long bikes otherwise I would of never been so brave if not.

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    258
    Wow, what a thread. I'm having a exactly the same dilemma. Just when I was thinking a large was the way to go, the man who designed them comes along and says medium!

    Wish there was chance of a test ride here in the UK. Especially as both me and the wife want an rfx.

  71. #71
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    565
    Wish there was chance of a test ride here in the UK. Especially as both me and the wife want an rfx.
    Well, I know Ritchie from Silverfish (UK importers) goes on the singletrackworld forum, so maybe if he saw the RFX thread there it might lead him to this thread...in which case:

    Dear ritchiethesilverfish, please build up demo medium and large RFXs and tour the UK with them!

    I'm still stuck in analysis paralysis by the way
    '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

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    258
    Not seen him on there in a while actually but it would be nice wouldn't it. Still, if they can sell all they can get without running a test fleet, then why would you!

    Please Ritchie, please!

  73. #73
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,509
    Again, let me reiterate... there is no 'one size fits best for a given height' calculator or formula. Total height just gets people in the ball park. Consideration for preferred stem length as well as body proportions takes it from there.

    As people have said, if you have long arms or a long torso (or in my case, both), you might want to consider sizing up.

    One guy might be 5'10" and all legs (and maybe better suited on a Medium) and the other might be built like me, 5'10" and all torso and arms (and better suited on a Large).
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  74. #74
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by 06HokieMTB View Post
    Again, let me reiterate... there is no 'one size fits best for a given height' calculator or formula. Total height just gets people in the ball park. Consideration for preferred stem length as well as body proportions takes it from there.

    As people have said, if you have long arms or a long torso (or in my case, both), you might want to consider sizing up.

    One guy might be 5'10" and all legs (and maybe better suited on a Medium) and the other might be built like me, 5'10" and all torso and arms (and better suited on a Large).
    I'm perfectly proportioned (well, apart from my massive trouser-snake)...where does that leave me?

    '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

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by swan lee View Post
    I'm perfectly proportioned (well, apart from my massive trouser-snake)...where does that leave me?

    Maybe a big "liar" size?

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally Posted by swan lee View Post
    I'm perfectly proportioned (well, apart from my massive trouser-snake)...where does that leave me?

    I leaves you with a girlfriend who likely thinks Gary Coleman is seven feet, two inches tall.

  77. #77
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    565
    I leaves you with a girlfriend who likely thinks Gary Coleman is seven feet, two inches tall.
    I'm married and in my 40s....so I guess it mostly ceased to be relevant years ago

    But 160mm of dw link ...there might be life in the old dog yet...
    '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

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    258
    So, has anyone in this situation pulled the trigger yet? If so, which way did you go and how do you feel now it's arrived?

  79. #79
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    565
    Not me I'm afraid. I was keen to pull the trigger on one of the UK's first batch of RFXs, but the aforementioned analysis paralysis has helped me realise that it's just about possible for me to wait until next spring. So hopefully I can get a demo in somewhere. Still working on Mrs Swan Lee that a holiday to California would be a great idea; she's thinking more Malibou than Murrieta though!

    It will be good to see more and more ride reports at they come through....and hopefully a RFX build thread will develop.
    '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

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    258
    Considering a large for me and a medium for the wife, there's only an inch between us. My thinking is that at least one of us will be on the right size. Does mean that we might end up selling one after a few rides after getting it just to get on the correct size.

  81. #81
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    565
    Considering a large for me and a medium for the wife, there's only an inch between us. My thinking is that at least one of us will be on the right size. Does mean that we might end up selling one after a few rides after getting it just to get on the correct size.
    Maybe you should set up a demo business to cover any shortfall!

    If you do buy a M and L your views will of course be very interesting as you'll have the chance to compare back to back. A potentially expensive experiment I guess, but I reckon you'd be able to shift the less-preferred frame easily.

    Please keep us updated on this thread!
    '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

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    258
    So, what sort of a hit would I take on an RFX frame that was a couple of months old? The frame is 2800 here in the UK.

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by swan lee View Post
    Not me I'm afraid. I was keen to pull the trigger on one of the UK's first batch of RFXs, but the aforementioned analysis paralysis has helped me realise that it's just about possible for me to wait until next spring. So hopefully I can get a demo in somewhere. Still working on Mrs Swan Lee that a holiday to California would be a great idea; she's thinking more Malibou than Murrieta though!

    It will be good to see more and more ride reports at they come through....and hopefully a RFX build thread will develop.
    If you are ever in the Lakes you can have a go on my large!

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    258
    How tall are you mrexpink? How did you end up at the large?

  85. #85
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    565
    If you are ever in the Lakes you can have a go on my large!
    Cheers, Pink, that's a generous offer. Sod's law is that I was in the Lakes for a week's holiday at beginning of Oct ... I even went to Push Bikes Cartel shop in Ambleside where I think you got your frame. Pity it's a fair stretch from Devon....a darn sight closer than California for a test ride though!

    Onzadog - it might be worth contacting Silverfish direct as you're close to pulling the trigger...if they think there's going to be a good UK demand it could be worth their while to whip up a bit of additional marketing hype and get a demo bike together sooner rather than later. I might drop them another line also...
    '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

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by onzadog View Post
    How tall are you mrexpink? How did you end up at the large?
    5 10",always had a medium but felt the large was the way to go,so far it feels good a bit more standover would be nice but it not a problem.I have a 50mm stem with 760mm bars & have the stem with no spacers.

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    258
    Thanks. We're the same height. Standover on a large v4 rfx is the same as my medium 6 pack. But more would be nice but it's never caused a problem while riding it.

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    252
    How come you are now Mrexpink?
    On size at 5'10 I would choose large, given that I ride a bike now with 456 reach and it's fine, I have ridden the larger ( medium) geometron with a reach of 502 and that was pretty amazing, don't need to move forwards or back so much on bike, so save energy, weight is better balanced between wheels and generates better grip. A consequence of not needing as much fore/ aft movement means you can run less shock pressure, as it does not have to "hold" the rider up so much, and thus generate even more grip!

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by dogvet View Post
    How come you are now Mrexpink?
    On size at 5'10 I would choose large, given that I ride a bike now with 456 reach and it's fine, I have ridden the larger ( medium) geometron with a reach of 502 and that was pretty amazing, don't need to move forwards or back so much on bike, so save energy, weight is better balanced between wheels and generates better grip. A consequence of not needing as much fore/ aft movement means you can run less shock pressure, as it does not have to "hold" the rider up so much, and thus generate even more grip!
    I had problems logging in with mrpink so became mrexpink!
    Bike rides great!

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation: miles e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,972
    Quote Originally Posted by dogvet View Post
    I have ridden the larger ( medium) geometron with a reach of 502 and that was pretty amazing, don't need to move forwards or back so much on bike
    You don't need to (the bike rides itself?), or is it that it isn't very responsive even if you do?
    ''It seems like a bit of a trend, everyone trying to make things longer over the last couple of years" Sam Hill

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    252
    No Miles, it is just less effort for the rider to go considerably faster with more grip and control, DH have got longer slacker and lower for the same reason, short bikes are more tiring as you have to get your body back to the attack position in equilibrium for the next part of the trail, you have to ride one really to appreciate it, internet geometry does not really give you a clue, the best way to think of it is a downhill bike front end mated to a climbing bike backend, have a look at "pilots" posts on the MTBR Nicolai site. He has a very good understanding of these bikes.
    The reasoning for the bike can be found through a search for Chris Porter's (mojo fox tuning) views on bike design.
    hope that helps!!

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation: miles e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,972
    Quote Originally Posted by dogvet View Post
    No Miles, it is just less effort for the rider to go considerably faster with more grip and control
    Thanks for the thoughtful response. I really have no interest in trying a ~50" wheel base bike, but interesting to hear from someone who has, and why they like it.

    I definitely get the stability part, but in my mind modern AM bikes have already come a long way from where they were just five or six years ago in that department; don't know how much further things need to be taken in that regard. So I can see how requiring less rider input would be less tiring, but seems like there would be some give and take involved there.

    I can't really understand the increased grip you mentioned- seems like if anything it would have the opposite effect, as in being "disconnected" from what the bike is doing. Interesting nonetheless, guess maybe that's one of the things you have to experience for yourself.
    ''It seems like a bit of a trend, everyone trying to make things longer over the last couple of years" Sam Hill

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by miles e View Post
    Thanks for the thoughtful response. I really have no interest in trying a ~50" wheel base bike, but interesting to hear from someone who has, and why they like it.

    I definitely get the stability part, but in my mind modern AM bikes have already come a long way from where they were just five or six years ago in that department; don't know how much further things need to be taken in that regard. So I can see how requiring less rider input would be less tiring, but seems like there would be some give and take involved there.

    I can't really understand the increased grip you mentioned- seems like if anything it would have the opposite effect, as in being "disconnected" from what the bike is doing. Interesting nonetheless, guess maybe that's one of the things you have to experience for yourself.
    The grip is improved two fold, one by specific shock tuning, and secondly by not having to accommodate relatively large body movement and keeping the shape of the bike in geometry terms with increased pressure in the shocks/forks it can be run with les pressure in the shocks thus giving more grip and still keeping the bikes shape as it is not having to deal with the bodies weight movement.
    The long wheelbase allows the rider to sit right in the middle of the bike generating grip at both ends, downhill with a head angle of 62 and a long front end, yes it needs a low attack position to weigh the front wheel, but one thing for sure you ain't going over the bars!!

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    258
    I was at a presentation by Chris Porter last night. After listening to that and having a quick car park spin on the geometron, I'm now thinking I should size up for both me, and the wife.

  95. #95
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by onzadog View Post
    I was at a presentation by Chris Porter last night. After listening to that and having a quick car park spin on the geometron, I'm now thinking I should size up for both me, and the wife.
    Interesting. There's definitely a lot to be said for the longer WB and reach of the larger RFX.

    My experience of a long bike with short stem was that you need to get much more forward over the bars, and let the back end step-out a bit more. This seems to offset some of the stability/grip advantage that dog vet refers to above, arising from being able to sit more centrally on a longer bike. I completely get that the new geo is going to be better when pointing downhill and through sweeping corners etc, it's just the tight and twisty stuff where you need to muscle the bike about I'm worried about. I guess you can do that with pretty much any bike if you adjust your riding style accordingly; lean forward, and let the rear slide. Not sure I've got the newskool radditude yet though!

    Onza, let us know when you've got the bikes - I'll be very interested to hear your views. It looks like Mr Pink is happy on the large.
    '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

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    258
    It's counter intuitive, I thought the same, slacked head angle puts the front wheel further away, short stem moves the weight back, but actually, because there's more room to fine tune within the cockpit of the bike, the suspension can be set up more accurately for the rider and position without having to cater for wild weight shifts. As for climbing, the geometron has a 77 degree seat angle, saddle forward on the post and long stays so again, steep seated climbing happens within the cockpit space without you tipping back over the rear axle.

    Again, I was concerned about the longer wheelbase in the twisty stuff but the bike is more stable when turning, therefore, a rider can turn more accurately. The stopwatch seems to suggest that the long wheel base is faster in the twisty stuff because of the slack head angle.

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by onzadog View Post
    It's counter intuitive, I thought the same, slacked head angle puts the front wheel further away, short stem moves the weight back, but actually, because there's more room to fine tune within the cockpit of the bike, the suspension can be set up more accurately for the rider and position without having to cater for wild weight shifts. As for climbing, the geometron has a 77 degree seat angle, saddle forward on the post and long stays so again, steep seated climbing happens within the cockpit space without you tipping back over the rear axle.

    Again, I was concerned about the longer wheelbase in the twisty stuff but the bike is more stable when turning, therefore, a rider can turn more accurately. The stopwatch seems to suggest that the long wheel base is faster in the twisty stuff because of the slack head angle.
    Chris Porters views are interesting and well worth searching for on the Internet.
    The 77 degree seat angle compared with the normal of 74 ( for my height BB to top of seat,5'10 tall) moves the cockpit approx 4 centimetres forward ( reach) so cockpit is same size but moved forward,TT staying the same, coupled with. 62 head angle makes for a long front centre bike. However as Onza says it's fine in the twisty bit as"pilot " ( see nicolai MTBR) rides an area called Cannick in Uk which both on bike trails and the off piste is tight single track narrow trails, which he claims is fine.
    My current bike is 1200 mm WB, and has no problem at, apart from the wide bars that clip the trees if care not taken!! so I suspect he is correct.

  98. #98
    Kiwi that Flew
    Reputation: deanopatoni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    740
    To address my own Tweener Anguish I have bought JustJ's large Burner so I can ride this for a season or so to see how well I fit a large Turner.

    Thank fully JustJ accepted my offer and has helped out a Homer in need
    I'll post a ride report when it's built up...

  99. #99
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    565
    To address my own Tweener Anguish I have bought JustJ's large Burner so I can ride this for a season or so to see how well I fit a large Turner.
    Dammit, I saw his frame on eBay over the last few weeks and was vaguely wondering about doing the same thing! Enjoy the bike deano, and let us know how you get on.

    I'd been tending toward committing sacrilege and ignoring DT's suggestion, going with the consensus, and getting a large. However, since starting this tweeter anguish thread I've had some health issues arise that may keep me of mtbs. Bummer. Until they resolve or I get a clear answer I'm stuck with just dreaming about a new RFX, and getting off on seeing all the new builds being posted up on here
    '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

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,593
    My earlier suggestions are based on what we are seeing when riders demo bikes, which of course is counter to long bike philsophy and Porters extreme opinion. I watch the videos of riders on verrrry long bikes and it is obvious they are verrry stable, it is also obvious that they require verrry different riding technique. If this trend is going to take over there is a verrry high number of riders that are going to have to learn a completely new way of riding (watch every professional marketing video online, LOW attack position is an understatement, WC XC is more like it) Or, riders are going to have to spend more and more time building flow type trails to ride them on, which will make it possible for this philosophy take over and create a new standard over the next few years, whatever we think personally, we have first row seats to this part in mtb history.

    My wife is between a small and medium, she rides the small and loves the flickability of a more nimble bike in the tight turns on enduro course when she is trying to make time against a clock, she had a choice in size and went for front wheel control. Honestly I don't see her or for that matter most of the enduro type racers we see regularly 'getting' the long low XC like upper body position and requisite body twist to move a verrry long bike thru tight turns. Only the top 5% of the racers I watched in 2 runs could angulate a bike with their butts out, and there was not a Mondraker or Whyte in the field. i.e. they were all more standard (2015) geometry bikes. Ibis, Trek whatever.

    I have 2 guys that work here at Turner Bikes, that both ride better than most, almost exactly the same height, one rides the XL with short stem, the other a Large with 50mm stem. It's all about personal choice, as long as they ride an RFX of course, I don't care what size they ride!

    DT

Page 1 of 2 12 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, 01:49 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, 09:31 AM

Members who have read this thread: 1

Posting Permissions

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