Norco optic sizing.

PB Forum :: Norco
Norco optic sizing.
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Message
Posted: Dec 23, 2019 at 3:36 Quote
Can any one help? i am after getting the 2020 optic, but i have a frame size issue. i normally ride medium but, when i have checked the Norco frame size finder it puts me slightly in for a large frame size. i am 174cm high (5ft 8 1/5inch).
Does anyone have one or have ridden one around my size?

Posted: Jan 5, 2020 at 20:29 Quote
I am almost the same height (173cm) and I rode a large and it felt stretched. I went with the medium as I was looking for a snappier bike anyway. Yet to get any significant riding in though.

Posted: Jan 5, 2020 at 21:25 Quote
If you go to Norco's Ride Aligned at enter you height and weight, it's recommends either M or L.

https://www.norco.com/bike-setup-guide/bikes/

Posted: Jan 16, 2020 at 0:38 Quote
thanks A-Hammer. Am sort of thinking the same, my height is medium for all other bike company.

Posted: Jan 25, 2020 at 17:15 Quote
I also need some sizing advice. I'm coming off of a medium 2015 Transition Scout which has a 680 standover height and 432 reach. On the Norco size chart I could go either small or medium. The standover height of the medium optic is 680 which should work well and the reach is 450. My Scout has a much shorter seatpost so I'm not sure if the 150mm would be too much. I'm 5'5" and 1/2 and if given the choice of feeling a bit cramped on a bike and having more room I would definitely choose slightly bigger over slightly small.

Related to this, I am fairly set on buying an Optic but for those who have one, do you think it would be a good choice for me? I live in Golden, BC and like to ride all mountain rolling trails, some with bigger climbs and downhills but nothing too crazy rowdy. I do 15-25km rides most days. My transition has exactly the same amount of travel as the optic front and back and I love my scout but would like to try 29 inch wheels. I've read in a couple of reviews that the optic feels similar to the scout. I also have looked at almost every company's trail bike and it seems like the optic c2 is a pretty good build for the money in comparison to most others. I could get a bit of a deal on it and another positive is supporting a Canadian company. I won't have the opportunity to demo or even sit on one before ordering so would love to hear any advice or recommendations you might have on sizing and whether or not you think this is the right bike for me.
Thanks!

Posted: Jan 31, 2020 at 9:17 Quote
I am 6' tall and have ridden larges my entire life. I started finding that as seat tube angles began to get steeper in last couple years the enormous reach numbers started to actually feel more cramped. I bit the bullet and purchased a XL optic this year and am very happy with the fit. I had been experiencing some lower back discomfort on longer rides on my large 2018 norco sight and that has completely disappeared on the optic. I do run a fairly tall saddle height (789mm) and the seat tube angle may have more of an effect on me that someone with shorter legs. I could definitely fit a 200mm dropper in the XL so that was another important factor for me.

Posted: Jan 31, 2020 at 11:50 Quote
PG-23 wrote:
[ ... ] my height is medium for all other bike company.

Don't worry about the nominal size. There have been examples of one company's XL being smaller than another company's Small. The reach measurement will always be your starting point - but remember to account for stack by adding or subtracting about 40% of the difference to the reach when comparing bikes. (More stack → more reach.)


velostein wrote:
I started finding that as seat tube angles began to get steeper in last couple years the enormous reach numbers started to actually feel more cramped.

This is only the case if you allow your hip position to change. If you were to slide your saddle around to keep a consistent hip position over the BB, longer reach (after accounting for stack) will always feel longer.

The only reason old bikes felt anything other than short is because we tolerated the lounge-chair seating position. You could still do that with a modern bike, if you like, and it will feel super long.

Posted: Jan 31, 2020 at 14:48 Quote
R-M-R wrote:
PG-23 wrote:
[ ... ] my height is medium for all other bike company.

Don't worry about the nominal size. There have been examples of one company's XL being smaller than another company's Small. The reach measurement will always be your starting point - but remember to account for stack by adding or subtracting about 40% of the difference to the reach when comparing bikes. (More stack → more reach.)


velostein wrote:
I started finding that as seat tube angles began to get steeper in last couple years the enormous reach numbers started to actually feel more cramped.

This is only the case if you allow your hip position to change. If you were to slide your saddle around to keep a consistent hip position over the BB, longer reach (after accounting for stack) will always feel longer.

The only reason old bikes felt anything other than short is because we tolerated the lounge-chair seating position. You could still do that with a modern bike, if you like, and it will feel super long.

Modern bike designers are looking to push the rider further over the center of the bike with not as much regard to Knee over pedal spindle or (hip position) and sometimes maintaining the same setback compared to a slacker bike is impossible. The difference between a 73 and 76 degree seat tube angle is very significant and can be more of a difference than can be accommodated with a saddle rail adjustment. This is especially true for taller riders who show significant amounts of post.

Posted: Jan 31, 2020 at 17:34 Quote
velostein wrote:
Modern bike designers are looking to push the rider further over the center of the bike with not as much regard to Knee over pedal spindle or (hip position) and sometimes maintaining the same setback compared to a slacker bike is impossible. The difference between a 73 and 76 degree seat tube angle is very significant and can be more of a difference than can be accommodated with a saddle rail adjustment. This is especially true for taller riders who show significant amounts of post.

Well aware of all these things.

Knee over pedal spindle (KOPS) is a purely coincidental relationship that was mistaken for a causative factor in efficiency. It was debunked decades ago. Mountain bikers don't use it, road time-trialists don't use it, road track riders don't use it, triathletes don't use it, and road riders only appear to maybe use it because of the coincidental proximity of their knees to pedal spindles. If there was any validity to the relationship, recumbent bikes would surely cause knees to spontaneously combust.

Think about it: why are bike designers moving riders' hips forward? There must be a reason, right? It's because we've finally realized we shouldn't design bikes for flat ground. Most of our pedaling - certainly the most intense pedaling - is done on steep terrain, which rotates the whole system rearward and causes further rotation due to increased sag from the suspension as the rider's weight shifts rearward. Maybe this restores KOPS while climbing, maybe not - it's a coincidental relationship, after all - but it's unquestionably more efficient and more comfortable.

So maybe you can't move you seat far enough forward on an old bike or far enough rearward on a new bike to establish a reference position from which to compare the apparent "size" of bikes, based on reach. Just as well, as the old positions should never have existed. I don't know about you, but my former climbing position was sitting on the very tip of a extended-length saddle that was slammed fully forward on the rails. Don't miss that one bit. Newer bikes are a long longer, which you may feel while seated and you definitely feel while standing - seat-tube angle doesn't matter at that point.

To summarize:

• New bikes are larger.
• New bikes will feel larger if the hip position is held constant. You have to keep something constant to make any sort of meaningful comparison.
• If you can't create a constant hip position for comparison, then we need to accept that a meaningful comparison doesn't even exist.
• When standing, new bikes unquestionably are larger and feel larger.

Posted: Feb 6, 2020 at 1:16 Quote
I am 174cm and ride a large 2020 sight. I just went up to a 45mm stem on it and now it feels good (initially had 35mm and felt like it had me a little far back on the bike). I also have the seat slammed to the back of the rails the 77.7STA (steeper than Optic) is too steep.

Posted: Feb 7, 2020 at 6:03 Quote
wrote:
I am 174cm and ride a large 2020 sight. I just went up to a 45mm stem on it and now it feels good (initially had 35mm and felt like it had me a little far back on the bike). I also have the seat slammed to the back of the rails the 77.7STA (steeper than Optic) is too steep.

Thanks, went to the shop to have a look at Optic, they only had a Medium in, the staff said it look small on me. they are getting a large in for me to have ride on.

Posted: Feb 7, 2020 at 6:17 Quote
I have an optic, size large and i am 5ft11. feels good with the stock stem. Would not want it any bigger.

Previous Page | Next Page

 
Copyright © 2000 - 2020. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.005292
Mobile Version of Website