EWS Rider Bike Size and Height Chart

PB Forum :: All Mountain, Enduro & Cross-Country
EWS Rider Bike Size and Height Chart
Author Message
flag Danzzz88
Posted: Oct 1, 2020 at 8:07 Quote
Yea, I've picked up an F1 wheel and tyre combo before and they are ridiculously light like you wouldn't believe. A lot of it down to the small magnesium rims. I don't know the actual weight but it felt around 5kg or less though this was years ago, the new wider tyres seem a fair bit heavier.
flag HaggeredShins
Posted: Oct 1, 2020 at 10:45 Quote
Nice to see this data in one place. When I was looking pretty intently at the FB29 I'd gone through a bunch of pro bikes trying to figure out why such stretched geo is being suggested for my height (5'11) yet almost everyone on Pivots around my height were choosing the med.

All I know here is that I'm quantifiably faster on shorter bikes. 460-470 max reach (typical medium) for me, which seems at a high level confirmed by this data, no matter how limited it is. Maybe its a personal/body preference and maybe its that my background is BMX, but I'm finding the modern stretch limo bikes to be fine for casual trail cruising yet just unwieldy, less fun, and slower when the pace picks up.
flag Kiwizak
Posted: Oct 1, 2020 at 17:06 Quote
Working with just height alone doesn't tell the whole story. For example I'm 5'11" with a 30" inseam. So my height is all in my torso, I benefit from a longer reach but struggle with seat tube length on a large.
flag Linc
O+
Posted: Oct 1, 2020 at 22:05 Quote
dmitri124 wrote:
So bikefit is not really up for negotiation, the bike either fits you or it doesn't, but picking the remainder of a bikes geo is a compromise, you cant have a 100% perfect bike for all situation, but one that handles the majority of terrain you tend to ride, the majority of the time.

It's absolutely up for negotiation. Like I said above, bike 'fit' is not independent of the trails that the bike is intended for. Perfect fit obviously changes for a slalom bike, trials bike, XC bike, pump track bike, BMX, road bike, DH bike. This is because they are designed to excel on different terrain - and fit is optimised accordingly.

The same applies within each segment. For example, bike fit can be optimised for DH terrain that is faster and wide open. Likewise, for terrain that is slower and tighter. Usually you have a mix of these two in a race series - so optimised fit averages out the best fit for terrain. However, if EWS launches with nothing but 5kmph switchback turns, you'll absolutely see riders adapt away from whatever you've set out above as 'optimum fit'
flag dmitri124
FL
Posted: Oct 2, 2020 at 1:38 Quote
bigquotesIt's absolutely up for negotiation. Like I said above, bike 'fit' is not independent of the trails that the bike is intended for. Perfect fit obviously changes for a slalom bike, trials bike, XC bike, pump track bike, BMX, road bike, DH bike. This is because they are designed to excel on different terrain - and fit is optimised accordingly.

Yes I agree, I was talking about RAD, the optimal distance between your hands and feet does not change from bike to bike, but the angle of RAD (RAAD as Lee calls it) can change depending on the style, so steeper for DH/Trials or flatter for xc road. Then the remainder of bike geo and design e.g FC:RC, HA, STa etc.. is always a compromise depending on what your design goals are.
flag Auto-XFil
O+
Posted: Oct 2, 2020 at 3:43 Quote
A few points:

People have been focusing on the BB-to-grips measurement to fit bikes since long before Lee's book. He didn't originate it, he just gave it a clever(ish) name and codified it. I'll call it RAD anyway. There is a PB article from Lee about RAD. It's much lampooned, and for good reason: it's incomplete. Buy the ebook, it's cheap and covers all the details about stem length and bar width and whatnot.

This (RAD) is for standing riding only. Saddle position is a completely separate discussion. And although bar width, stem length, crank length, bike geo, etc. all play into RAD, they can be traded in ways that dramatically affect bike handling. So RAD is merely one component of bike fit, you can't just set your RAD on bike that's way too big or small and expect it to work well for you.

RAD is very appealing, as it really is the missing link between all the cycling disciplines which rely on handling and working the bike over terrain (that is, not road or TT). BMX and DH bikes look incredibly different, but most well-fit riders are indeed on bikes with very similar RADs.

RAAD, with two AAs, for those unfamiliar, is the angle from the BB to the bars. In other words, you can have the same RAD distance with a low stack and long reach, or vice-versa. Lee gives ranges for each sport with XC being the longest and lowest, and DH being the highest and shortest. This all makes sense and lines up with what we see in good bike fits (this includes stem length and bar rise, remember.)

If your RAD is spot-on per Lee's definition, you'll have maximum range of motion and mechanical advantage for pumping and rowing the bike. This makes it a great starting point for any bike fit. But there must be compromise in anything this simple. Aero is not considered, which matters in XC (and DH too!). Pedaling efficiency doesn't seem to depend too much on RAD (remember, we can freely change RAAD and keep RAD the same), but there might be a tradeoff. And perhaps, as I suggested in the first post, there's reason to trade RAD and give up range of motion for more bike stability.

Unlike KOPS (knee-over-pedal-spindle) and other bike fitting shortcuts with no physiological basis, RAD makes sense. I highly suggest everyone use it, not as a be-all-end all, but as a starting point. Think of RAD like suspension sag. If you can't get your sag close, your suspension is messed up.

So, when sizing a bike, check to see what you need to do to get RAD close. If this means a 80mm stem or huge riser bars or something else silly, the bike is probably too small. If the bike is so long that a 30mm stem and flat bars don't give a decent RAD, it's probably too big. There's still a lot of flexibility in sizing up and down based on stem and bar size and shape.
flag Danzzz88
Posted: Oct 2, 2020 at 5:27 Quote
"If the bike is so long that a 30mm stem and flat bars don't give a decent RAD, it's probably too big"

Except that fitting riser bars or more stem spacers actually make the bike feel shorter as you are less stretched over and the reach becomes shorter due to the head angle, even though the RAD may have increased your shoulders are above the handlebar not below so again it's not quite giving the whole picture.
flag theelias09
Posted: Oct 2, 2020 at 13:06 Quote
Kiwizak wrote:
Working with just height alone doesn't tell the whole story. For example I'm 5'11" with a 30" inseam. So my height is all in my torso, I benefit from a longer reach but struggle with seat tube length on a large.

Someone with longer arms would also need a SHORTER RAD if that's how they determine fit, which doesn't make much sense to me. Shouldn't shorter arms require shorter reach?
flag Auto-XFil
O+
Posted: Oct 3, 2020 at 6:25 Quote
Someone with short arms would need a longer RAD, but they would get it by running a higher stack and shorter reach.

Again, RAD is NOT the whole picture. You also need to make sure a bunch of other things are correct. But you can have RAD set as recommended and still have a lot of flexibility to dial in everything else.

If you stop thinking about the bike as a static position, and think about the dynamic motion you go through as you push over a drop or row over a rise, RAD makes much more sense. Ride a pump track on a BMX bike, and then on a DJ, and then on an Enduro bike. Even though the bikes feel incredibly different, your movements are nearly identical when working rollers or back-siding a landing. And those movements are all based on using the bike as a lever between the bottom bracket and your hands.

What changes with those bikes is where the wheels are located relative to that lever. Tucking the wheels in closer gives you much more leverage, which is why you can pump so hard on a BMX bike, but an Enduro bike feels sluggish by comparison. You have to move your body farther to get the same movement of the wheels on a big bike. But your body dimensions don’t change, and the movement of pumping doesn’t.

So, by all means, run a 64* HTA and 445mm stays on your enduro bike. Get a long reach as well, maybe 460-480mm for a 180cm rider. It’ll be stable and fast. But it’ll also be slower to respond to your working of that lever, so optimize the RAD (with a very short stem) to ensure you can still pump and row the bike as effectively as possible, given how little mechanical advantage you have over those big wheels which have been pushed so far from your body.

If you run a really long and/or tall bike, say 489-500mm reach and 430-440 stack for a 180cm rider, so that your RAD is 20-40mm too long, you’ll also get stability, but you lose the ability to work the terrain. In some cases you MIGHT be faster doing that, especially if you’re kind of over your head on the terrain you’re riding, or doing an Enduro race that you’re not fit enough to go super hard over every stage.

Of course, there are degrees to all of this. 10mm of RAD probably isn’t going to make or break anything. 50mm would probably feel awful. It’s a starting point. Check it - if you’re way off, get it closer (probably a shorter stem, for most riders) and see how you feel about it. I bet you’ll like it.
flag Danzzz88
Posted: Oct 3, 2020 at 11:41 Quote
This is the point I was trying to argue for ages when everyone was saying long reach short stack is the way forwards even on downhills and I wasn't having it. Even Chris Porter is of this mindset. However in my mind there is a very simple analogy, would you rather go down a mountain on a superbike or on a chopper?
The chopper has slacker head angle, longer wheelbase but shorter reach and you are less head first. This is why I think dh bikes have always had shorter reaches for their size than trail or enduro bikes. Yes you want to maximise the wheelbase for stability but you don't want to go about doing that by leaning more forwards creating a more forwards weight bias on steep declines as this is pushing your cog nearer to the front wheel. I feel way more confident on downhills with a bike that has a high stack and makes you feel in the bike rather than stretched atop of it. Ofc too much either way is bad, it's findinv a balance bewteen not going over the bars and having enough front wheel traction whilst at the same time having a wide enough sweet spot so as to make it easier and have more margin for error, and of course a large part of this depends on the specific riders anatomy.
flag Sambolo
Posted: Oct 3, 2020 at 12:50 Quote
I dont know what RAD is. I’m 182cm I have 510 reach, 455 CS, ~64 HTA, 78 STA and 1328 WB. I have never before had a bike that feels so good and natural when riding. Also feels very ergonomic and I can do longer rides than before.
The bike has also pushed my riding to another level. Tight corners are no problem, I actually like doing them. Descending and speed feels way more stable. Also climps like a goat. I’m no pro, and I don’t care what pros are riding, I’m happy with mine.
Many might think that my bike is very big, but when they try it they say it doesn’t feel like it.

Actually my old ”short” bike has about the same ETT(a bit longer to be honest). Never felt good riding seated and when standing felt way too short(reach around 440). There is not a single thing that felt better or more natural with my old bike.

You need different riding style for my current bike vs the old shorter one, but it took only about an hour or two to feel like I’m in home. Might not suit for everyone, but suits for me and I love it!

Instead of looking all the numbers, go and take a good long test drives with different bikes.
flag Danzzz88
Posted: Oct 3, 2020 at 13:08 Quote
Well yes with the much steeper seat angles the new bikes with long reach do feel small and more upright when you are seated because you are closer to the bars seated and your lower back is less arched too because the cranks are more directly under you rather than in front further compounding this affect so for just cruising around seated they probably will feel more comfortable and better and not too big. The problem when you have such a huge wheelbase and long chainstays is when you want to turn sharp corners fast or do a manual ect. Seated the new bikes feel smaller, and standing an extra few cm is not going to be that noticeable on the reach by the time you have tilted a bit more from your ankles, knees and hips there is barely any noticeable difference stood up in terms of feel, stand on your bike and rest the bottom of your palms on the grips, then try it resting the ends of your fingers, that's like 150mm difference in reach (from fingetips to bottom of palm) doing that but it's barely noticeable in terms of how fowards you feel on the bike. Like I say the main giveaway is the actual wheel base not the fit itself and that's where the bike can start to feel too big and cumbersome, but if you are tall then it will suit you perfectly so it doesn't really matter what anyone else rides.
flag jeremy3220
O+ FL
Posted: Oct 3, 2020 at 14:27 Quote
RAD + the angle is just expressing the position of the head tube relative to the BB in polar coordinates. Stack height and reach are cartesian coordinates. It's not that interesting.
flag dmitri124
FL
Posted: Oct 4, 2020 at 4:18 Quote
jeremy3220 wrote:
RAD + the angle is just expressing the position of the head tube relative to the BB in polar coordinates. Stack height and reach are cartesian coordinates. It's not that interesting.

Smile Maths is cool for sure!
flag Danzzz88
Posted: Oct 4, 2020 at 4:22 Quote
Basically an overly elaborate way of saying the points are plotted in space, which is common sense lol, love when people make simple things try sound more complex than they really are. Right I'm off to do my daily hygeine routine involving H2O and Sodium laureth sulfate....

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.012970
Mobile Version of Website