Are people looking at bike sizing the wrong way?

PB Forum :: All Mountain, Enduro & Cross-Country
Are people looking at bike sizing the wrong way?
  • Previous Page
Author Message
flag Danzzz88
Posted: May 29, 2020 at 22:29 Quote
People say the SB150 is a big bike, people say the Capra runs small. But what if you don't look at the names medium, large ect.

I was asking a Youtuber what the most downhill oriented bike he tested was and he says the Sb150 as it has a longer wheelbase ect.

The thing is if you compare models by fit, by which I mean reach and standover on a like for like basis, you will see that a large Capra has the exact same reach as a medium sb150. Now keeping this 'fit' as the constant all the other variables about the Capra are actually bigger, the wheelbase, front centre, chainstays ect plus it has 20mm more travel. So on a reach for reach basis the Capra is the bigger bike.

Or another way of looking at it, the reach to wheelbase ratio is higher on the Capra, which is more inline with how a downhill bike is.

Maybe people should choose bike by geometry rather than what manufacturers say they should be on?
flag justwan-naride
Posted: May 29, 2020 at 23:11 Quote
People have been doing this more or less. Brand's sizing is all over the place anyway, so small, medium, large don't mean much.

The way I see it reach, ETT, stack and seat tube length define how a certain bike will fit the rider.

Wheelbase, head tube angle, front vs rear centre, BBH define how a bike is fit for the intended use.

For example, say I have a hardtail and and a FS trailbike. The trailbike is my "big" bike, so I'd be more likely to buy the biggest size that fits, perhaps one size larger than what the brand recommends.

If I had a FS trailbike as my only bike, I'd get the size the brand says is right for my height
(or the shorter of the two if I fell between sizes) because it would have to be more of an alrounder.
flag Danzzz88
Posted: May 29, 2020 at 23:24 Quote
justwan-naride wrote:
People have been doing this more or less. Brand's sizing is all over the place anyway, so small, medium, large don't mean much.

The way I see it reach, ETT, stack and seat tube length define how a certain bike will fit the rider.

Wheelbase, head tube angle, front vs rear centre, BBH define how a bike is fit for the intended use.

For example, say I have a hardtail and and a FS trailbike. The trailbike is my "big" bike, so I'd be more likely to buy the biggest size that fits, perhaps one size larger than what yhe brand recommends.p

If I had a FS trailbike as my only bike, I'd get the size the brand says is right for my height because it would be more of an alrounder.

Yea I agree, but what I'm also getting at is the irony of this whole longer lower slacker nonsense. The longer bit is a bit misleading, at least now we have bikes where low standover means one can fit multiple sizes. Because a longer reach but lower stack means a shorter wheelbase for the fit. I get the seat tubes have got steeper for climbing and that is only good but at the expense of now needing a longer reach. The trouble is now that is you keep the head angle and stack the same on the longer reach bike the wheelbase will be shorter on a reach to wheelbase ratio. So actually this longer lower slacker isn't benfitting going downhill it's only benefitting going up. Basically we are sacrificing downhill stability and wheelbase for a longer reach just so we can keep the same ETT length. This is polar opposite to the intentions of a downhill bike hence why trail bikes have the longest reaches and downhill bikes have the shortest. As a longer wheelbase and a more upright attack position feels much more confidence inspiring than being stretched over on a long reach bike like an XC rider. This is the irony they are claiming ETT is no longer important by ironically it's the driving factor behind making these longer reach bikes 'fit'.
flag TheSlayer99
FL
Posted: May 30, 2020 at 3:50 Quote
Danzzz88 wrote:
justwan-naride wrote:
People have been doing this more or less. Brand's sizing is all over the place anyway, so small, medium, large don't mean much.

The way I see it reach, ETT, stack and seat tube length define how a certain bike will fit the rider.

Wheelbase, head tube angle, front vs rear centre, BBH define how a bike is fit for the intended use.

For example, say I have a hardtail and and a FS trailbike. The trailbike is my "big" bike, so I'd be more likely to buy the biggest size that fits, perhaps one size larger than what yhe brand recommends.p

If I had a FS trailbike as my only bike, I'd get the size the brand says is right for my height because it would be more of an alrounder.

Yea I agree, but what I'm also getting at is the irony of this whole longer lower slacker nonsense. The longer bit is a bit misleading, at least now we have bikes where low standover means one can fit multiple sizes. Because a longer reach but lower stack means a shorter wheelbase for the fit. I get the seat tubes have got steeper for climbing and that is only good but at the expense of now needing a longer reach. The trouble is now that is you keep the head angle and stack the same on the longer reach bike the wheelbase will be shorter on a reach to wheelbase ratio. So actually this longer lower slacker isn't benfitting going downhill it's only benefitting going up. Basically we are sacrificing downhill stability and wheelbase for a longer reach just so we can keep the same ETT length. This is polar opposite to the intentions of a downhill bike hence why trail bikes have the longest reaches and downhill bikes have the shortest. As a longer wheelbase and a more upright attack position feels much more confidence inspiring than being stretched over on a long reach bike like an XC rider. This is the irony they are claiming ETT is no longer important by ironically it's the driving factor behind making these longer reach bikes 'fit'.

What? You are outright incorrect in most of what you just said. You sound so unbelievably uneducated it’s amusing. First, stack has absolutely nothing to do with wheelbase. Second, downhill stability is not decreased by a longer reach. Third, most downhill bikes have comparable reach (within 5-10mm) to enduro bikes and trail bikes from the same company. Fourth, a more upright body position is not more stable.
flag Publicanus
Posted: May 30, 2020 at 4:24 Quote
Well it's made me laugh when someone thinks that lower relates to the TT when it's the BB.

In some 35 years of MTBing I've never considered the standover as an issue on any bike I've had, in all the stacks I've had my dangly bits have never come to grief because of the TT.

My current bike goes up, down quicker than any one I've had and is more stable and puts the biggest smile on my face than any bike I've had.

It's a Bird Aeris, yes, longer, lower, slacker.
flag commental
Posted: May 30, 2020 at 4:48 Quote
Reach is measured from the centre of the BB to the centre of the top of the head tube. It's there to give an idea about room when you're descending out of the saddle. Seat tube angles will affect the ETT, but not the reach.
flag justwan-naride
Posted: May 30, 2020 at 4:53 Quote
You seem to put a lot of weight on the reach to wheelbase ratio. From what I've seen so far both numbers have gotten longer for the same size over the last few years. It's the ETT that has started to get short again in some 2019-20 bikes due to the STA getting steeper but reach staying the same.

Anyway, there are brands in every area of the geometry spectrum right now, so at least there's plenty of choice.

Also note that there cases where the geo doesn't seem to make sense on paper, but when you actually ride the bike it does.
flag friendlyfoe
Posted: May 30, 2020 at 8:12 Quote
Danzzz88 wrote:
The trouble is now that is you keep the head angle and stack the same on the longer reach bike the wheelbase will be shorter on a reach to wheelbase ratio.

Reach to wheelbase is not a ratio, they are separate measurements. Maybe one too many pints in lockdown this evening? If you keep head angle and stack the same and increase reach, the wheelbase gets bigger by exactly how much the reach increases. STA is then adjusted to keep top tube length about where it was before.

A large sb150 has almost exactly 20mm longer reach and 20mm longer wheelbase than the same size Capra, making the yeti a larger bike by 20mm. Not sure how you came to the conclusion that the Capra is a bigger bike. And you can't just size up with most brands because shorter reach bikes typically also have slacker seat tubes to get a desired top tube measurement, so if you sized up the bike would be too big when seated.

Also maybe try asking questions next time instead of starting with "blah blah blah is nonsense"
flag Danzzz88
Posted: May 30, 2020 at 9:21 Quote
TheSlayer99 wrote:
Danzzz88 wrote:
justwan-naride wrote:
People have been doing this more or less. Brand's sizing is all over the place anyway, so small, medium, large don't mean much.

The way I see it reach, ETT, stack and seat tube length define how a certain bike will fit the rider.

Wheelbase, head tube angle, front vs rear centre, BBH define how a bike is fit for the intended use.

For example, say I have a hardtail and and a FS trailbike. The trailbike is my "big" bike, so I'd be more likely to buy the biggest size that fits, perhaps one size larger than what yhe brand recommends.p

If I had a FS trailbike as my only bike, I'd get the size the brand says is right for my height because it would be more of an alrounder.

Yea I agree, but what I'm also getting at is the irony of this whole longer lower slacker nonsense. The longer bit is a bit misleading, at least now we have bikes where low standover means one can fit multiple sizes. Because a longer reach but lower stack means a shorter wheelbase for the fit. I get the seat tubes have got steeper for climbing and that is only good but at the expense of now needing a longer reach. The trouble is now that is you keep the head angle and stack the same on the longer reach bike the wheelbase will be shorter on a reach to wheelbase ratio. So actually this longer lower slacker isn't benfitting going downhill it's only benefitting going up. Basically we are sacrificing downhill stability and wheelbase for a longer reach just so we can keep the same ETT length. This is polar opposite to the intentions of a downhill bike hence why trail bikes have the longest reaches and downhill bikes have the shortest. As a longer wheelbase and a more upright attack position feels much more confidence inspiring than being stretched over on a long reach bike like an XC rider. This is the irony they are claiming ETT is no longer important by ironically it's the driving factor behind making these longer reach bikes 'fit'.

What? You are outright incorrect in most of what you just said. You sound so unbelievably uneducated it’s amusing. First, stack has absolutely nothing to do with wheelbase. Second, downhill stability is not decreased by a longer reach. Third, most downhill bikes have comparable reach (within 5-10mm) to enduro bikes and trail bikes from the same company. Fourth, a more upright body position is not more stable.

Pot calling the kettle black here. I guess IQ trumps the 'wrong education'. If you have a given reach then make the stack longer, aka the headtube and keep the head angle the same what do you think happens, the wheelbase does indeed get longer. Sorry but if you can't visualise that mentally perhaps go on 99 spokes and compare geometries of bikes. A yeti Sb150 in medium has the same reach as a Capra in large. The capra has a longer wheelbase even though it has a half degree steeper head angle because it's stack is higher. I'm not talking about stack with stem spacers, I'm talking about the proper definition of stack that has been pointed out here already, bottom bracket to top of headtube distance vertically.
My idea behind what I see is that for a given reach, a lot of these bikes are also going in the direction of lower stack. If you don't also decrease head angle when reducing the stack then you will end up with one bike that has a longer stack and wheelbase and therefore stability for a given reach. I would argue a longer wheelbase aids stability more than a longer reach if picking one or the other, you can get your weight lower on either bike but can't change wheelbase on the trail.

Plus the terms medium or large are irrelevant, they are just terms the manufacturer has given hence why specialized has strayed away from such terms. One brands medium isn't anothers, and all brands mediums are bigger than mediums of 10 years ago so technically we are riding bikes 2 sizes up from then but with lower standovers.
flag Danzzz88
Posted: May 30, 2020 at 9:57 Quote
Or another example lets go to extremes, take motorcycles. Would you rather go downhill on a chopper or on a superbike? Both fit in terms of reach but I know which one I rather be going downhill on.
flag TheSlayer99
FL
Posted: May 30, 2020 at 11:25 Quote
Danzzz88 wrote:
TheSlayer99 wrote:
Danzzz88 wrote:


Yea I agree, but what I'm also getting at is the irony of this whole longer lower slacker nonsense. The longer bit is a bit misleading, at least now we have bikes where low standover means one can fit multiple sizes. Because a longer reach but lower stack means a shorter wheelbase for the fit. I get the seat tubes have got steeper for climbing and that is only good but at the expense of now needing a longer reach. The trouble is now that is you keep the head angle and stack the same on the longer reach bike the wheelbase will be shorter on a reach to wheelbase ratio. So actually this longer lower slacker isn't benfitting going downhill it's only benefitting going up. Basically we are sacrificing downhill stability and wheelbase for a longer reach just so we can keep the same ETT length. This is polar opposite to the intentions of a downhill bike hence why trail bikes have the longest reaches and downhill bikes have the shortest. As a longer wheelbase and a more upright attack position feels much more confidence inspiring than being stretched over on a long reach bike like an XC rider. This is the irony they are claiming ETT is no longer important by ironically it's the driving factor behind making these longer reach bikes 'fit'.

What? You are outright incorrect in most of what you just said. You sound so unbelievably uneducated it’s amusing. First, stack has absolutely nothing to do with wheelbase. Second, downhill stability is not decreased by a longer reach. Third, most downhill bikes have comparable reach (within 5-10mm) to enduro bikes and trail bikes from the same company. Fourth, a more upright body position is not more stable.

Pot calling the kettle black here. I guess IQ trumps the 'wrong education'. If you have a given reach then make the stack longer, aka the headtube and keep the head angle the same what do you think happens, the wheelbase does indeed get longer. Sorry but if you can't visualise that mentally perhaps go on 99 spokes and compare geometries of bikes. A yeti Sb150 in medium has the same reach as a Capra in large. The capra has a longer wheelbase even though it has a half degree steeper head angle because it's stack is higher. I'm not talking about stack with stem spacers, I'm talking about the proper definition of stack that has been pointed out here already, bottom bracket to top of headtube distance vertically.
My idea behind what I see is that for a given reach, a lot of these bikes are also going in the direction of lower stack. If you don't also decrease head angle when reducing the stack then you will end up with one bike that has a longer stack and wheelbase and therefore stability for a given reach. I would argue a longer wheelbase aids stability more than a longer reach if picking one or the other, you can get your weight lower on either bike but can't change wheelbase on the trail.

Plus the terms medium or large are irrelevant, they are just terms the manufacturer has given hence why specialized has strayed away from such terms. One brands medium isn't anothers, and all brands mediums are bigger than mediums of 10 years ago so technically we are riding bikes 2 sizes up from then but with lower standover.

Alright Mr. 200 IQ, if you’re so smart how come you only have 1 response for me when I pointed out 4 logical fallacies in your argument? If you’re so smart you’d also be able to properly formulate an argument instead of whatever this is that makes almost no sense. In fact you don’t even seem to have an understanding of your own argument, let alone mine. Your point about motorcycles makes no sense, and straight up isn’t relevant to your argument. For reference as well, I can say with confidence I am significantly more intelligent than you, and I am willing to put a lot of money on that.

The Capra has longer chainstays than the sb150. Every 10mm of stack only accounts for 2mm of reach (of which there is a 15mm difference between the yeti and the yt), so the impact to wheelbase is so close to minimal it doesn’t matter. This can be seen in the wheelbase numbers of the 2 bikes, as the difference in wheelbase between the 2 is only 4mm when comparing the medium sb150 and large Capra.

Obviously for a given reach, with the same chainstay length, a bike with a longer wheelbase would be more stable. That’s simple mathematical geometry. For a given wheelbase and chainstay length, a bike with longer reach would also be more stable, again because of simple mathematical geometry. Now if you include chainstay length, this changes, but to explain that would be too much for your tiny brain to handle, let alone for you to attempt to visualize, so don’t bother.

So now that I’ve intellectually destroyed whatever ground your argument had to stand on, is there anything else you’d like to say?
flag Danzzz88
Posted: May 30, 2020 at 11:41 Quote
TheSlayer99 wrote:
Danzzz88 wrote:
TheSlayer99 wrote:


What? You are outright incorrect in most of what you just said. You sound so unbelievably uneducated it’s amusing. First, stack has absolutely nothing to do with wheelbase. Second, downhill stability is not decreased by a longer reach. Third, most downhill bikes have comparable reach (within 5-10mm) to enduro bikes and trail bikes from the same company. Fourth, a more upright body position is not more stable.

Pot calling the kettle black here. I guess IQ trumps the 'wrong education'. If you have a given reach then make the stack longer, aka the headtube and keep the head angle the same what do you think happens, the wheelbase does indeed get longer. Sorry but if you can't visualise that mentally perhaps go on 99 spokes and compare geometries of bikes. A yeti Sb150 in medium has the same reach as a Capra in large. The capra has a longer wheelbase even though it has a half degree steeper head angle because it's stack is higher. I'm not talking about stack with stem spacers, I'm talking about the proper definition of stack that has been pointed out here already, bottom bracket to top of headtube distance vertically.
My idea behind what I see is that for a given reach, a lot of these bikes are also going in the direction of lower stack. If you don't also decrease head angle when reducing the stack then you will end up with one bike that has a longer stack and wheelbase and therefore stability for a given reach. I would argue a longer wheelbase aids stability more than a longer reach if picking one or the other, you can get your weight lower on either bike but can't change wheelbase on the trail.

Plus the terms medium or large are irrelevant, they are just terms the manufacturer has given hence why specialized has strayed away from such terms. One brands medium isn't anothers, and all brands mediums are bigger than mediums of 10 years ago so technically we are riding bikes 2 sizes up from then but with lower standover.

Alright Mr. 200 IQ, if you’re so smart how come you only have 1 response for me when I pointed out 4 logical fallacies in your argument? If you’re so smart you’d also be able to properly formulate an argument instead of whatever this is that makes almost no sense. In fact you don’t even seem to have an understanding of your own argument, let alone mine. Your point about motorcycles makes no sense, and straight up isn’t relevant to your argument. For reference as well, I can say with confidence I am significantly more intelligent than you, and I am willing to put a lot of money on that.

The Capra has longer chainstays than the sb150. Every 10mm of stack only accounts for 2mm of reach (of which there is a 15mm difference between the yeti and the yt), so the impact to wheelbase is so close to minimal it doesn’t matter. This can be seen in the wheelbase numbers of the 2 bikes, as the difference in wheelbase between the 2 is only 4mm when comparing the medium sb150 and large Capra.

Obviously for a given reach, with the same chainstay length, a bike with a longer wheelbase would be more stable. That’s simple mathematical geometry. For a given wheelbase and chainstay length, a bike with longer reach would also be more stable, again because of simple mathematical geometry. Now if you include chainstay length, this changes, but to explain that would be too much for your tiny brain to handle, let alone for you to attempt to visualize, so don’t bother.

So now that I’ve intellectually destroyed whatever ground your argument had to stand on, is there anything else you’d like to say?

I won't even mention my IQ because you talking down to me is absurd. Forget stay length for a moment, a given reach with a higher stack and same head angle equal a longer wheelbase. Many of these longer reach bikes are also decreasing stack height which increases the length of the reach relative to the length of the wheelbase.

I'm simply noticing the fact that looking at bike geometries as a whole going from trail or xc, or even road bikes along the spectrum towards downhill bikes the general pattern seems to be as the bike gets more towards the downhill category the wheelbase and stack both increase relative to the amount of reach. However this new trend is pushing things back towards the trail direction. I don't understand how you cannot grasp what I am saying.

But maybe your iq is past 152 in which case I submit to your superior intellect.

I correct myself, to be more precise the reach to front centre ratio would be more appropriate. We can forget the back half of the bike in this argument.
flag Danzzz88
Posted: May 30, 2020 at 11:59 Quote
Basically I can fit a medium sb150 or a large capea at my height. I cannot fit the large sb150. So at least at my height where I cross the boundary between a medium and large capra, but cannot fit on a large sb150. Choosing the large capra over the medium sb150 given that those are the two sizes from each manufacturer I can fit comfortably, the large capra gives me a longer wheelbase. So for my height at least for a bike that fits, out of the two options the capra is indeed the bigger bike though both have identical reaches. That's all I'm trying to say.
flag TheSlayer99
FL
Posted: May 30, 2020 at 12:02 Quote
Danzzz88 wrote:
TheSlayer99 wrote:
Danzzz88 wrote:


Pot calling the kettle black here. I guess IQ trumps the 'wrong education'. If you have a given reach then make the stack longer, aka the headtube and keep the head angle the same what do you think happens, the wheelbase does indeed get longer. Sorry but if you can't visualise that mentally perhaps go on 99 spokes and compare geometries of bikes. A yeti Sb150 in medium has the same reach as a Capra in large. The capra has a longer wheelbase even though it has a half degree steeper head angle because it's stack is higher. I'm not talking about stack with stem spacers, I'm talking about the proper definition of stack that has been pointed out here already, bottom bracket to top of headtube distance vertically.
My idea behind what I see is that for a given reach, a lot of these bikes are also going in the direction of lower stack. If you don't also decrease head angle when reducing the stack then you will end up with one bike that has a longer stack and wheelbase and therefore stability for a given reach. I would argue a longer wheelbase aids stability more than a longer reach if picking one or the other, you can get your weight lower on either bike but can't change wheelbase on the trail.

Plus the terms medium or large are irrelevant, they are just terms the manufacturer has given hence why specialized has strayed away from such terms. One brands medium isn't anothers, and all brands mediums are bigger than mediums of 10 years ago so technically we are riding bikes 2 sizes up from then but with lower standover.

Alright Mr. 200 IQ, if you’re so smart how come you only have 1 response for me when I pointed out 4 logical fallacies in your argument? If you’re so smart you’d also be able to properly formulate an argument instead of whatever this is that makes almost no sense. In fact you don’t even seem to have an understanding of your own argument, let alone mine. Your point about motorcycles makes no sense, and straight up isn’t relevant to your argument. For reference as well, I can say with confidence I am significantly more intelligent than you, and I am willing to put a lot of money on that.

The Capra has longer chainstays than the sb150. Every 10mm of stack only accounts for 2mm of reach (of which there is a 15mm difference between the yeti and the yt), so the impact to wheelbase is so close to minimal it doesn’t matter. This can be seen in the wheelbase numbers of the 2 bikes, as the difference in wheelbase between the 2 is only 4mm when comparing the medium sb150 and large Capra.

Obviously for a given reach, with the same chainstay length, a bike with a longer wheelbase would be more stable. That’s simple mathematical geometry. For a given wheelbase and chainstay length, a bike with longer reach would also be more stable, again because of simple mathematical geometry. Now if you include chainstay length, this changes, but to explain that would be too much for your tiny brain to handle, let alone for you to attempt to visualize, so don’t bother.

So now that I’ve intellectually destroyed whatever ground your argument had to stand on, is there anything else you’d like to say?

I won't even mention my IQ because you talking down to me is absurd. Forget stay length for a moment, a given reach with a higher stack and same head angle equal a longer wheelbase. Many of these longer reach bikes are also decreasing stack height which increases the length of the reach relative to the length of the wheelbase.

I'm simply noticing the fact that looking at bike geometries as a whole going from trail or xc, or even road bikes along the spectrum towards downhill bikes the general pattern seems to be as the bike gets more towards the downhill category the wheelbase and stack both increase relative to the amount of reach. However this new trend is pushing things back towards the trail direction. I don't understand how you cannot grasp what I am saying.

But maybe your iq is past 152 in which case I submit to your superior intellect.

I correct myself, to be more precise the reach to front centre ratio would be more appropriate. We can forget the back half of the bike in this argument.

Hey I’m not the one who brought intellect into this bud. I have also responded to what you have said and explained the facts behind my argument, you are the one not understanding. You also have yet to respond to the 3 other logical fallacies I pointed out in your argument.
flag Danzzz88
Posted: May 30, 2020 at 12:04 Quote
TheSlayer99 wrote:
Danzzz88 wrote:
TheSlayer99 wrote:


Alright Mr. 200 IQ, if you’re so smart how come you only have 1 response for me when I pointed out 4 logical fallacies in your argument? If you’re so smart you’d also be able to properly formulate an argument instead of whatever this is that makes almost no sense. In fact you don’t even seem to have an understanding of your own argument, let alone mine. Your point about motorcycles makes no sense, and straight up isn’t relevant to your argument. For reference as well, I can say with confidence I am significantly more intelligent than you, and I am willing to put a lot of money on that.

The Capra has longer chainstays than the sb150. Every 10mm of stack only accounts for 2mm of reach (of which there is a 15mm difference between the yeti and the yt), so the impact to wheelbase is so close to minimal it doesn’t matter. This can be seen in the wheelbase numbers of the 2 bikes, as the difference in wheelbase between the 2 is only 4mm when comparing the medium sb150 and large Capra.

Obviously for a given reach, with the same chainstay length, a bike with a longer wheelbase would be more stable. That’s simple mathematical geometry. For a given wheelbase and chainstay length, a bike with longer reach would also be more stable, again because of simple mathematical geometry. Now if you include chainstay length, this changes, but to explain that would be too much for your tiny brain to handle, let alone for you to attempt to visualize, so don’t bother.

So now that I’ve intellectually destroyed whatever ground your argument had to stand on, is there anything else you’d like to say?

I won't even mention my IQ because you talking down to me is absurd. Forget stay length for a moment, a given reach with a higher stack and same head angle equal a longer wheelbase. Many of these longer reach bikes are also decreasing stack height which increases the length of the reach relative to the length of the wheelbase.

I'm simply noticing the fact that looking at bike geometries as a whole going from trail or xc, or even road bikes along the spectrum towards downhill bikes the general pattern seems to be as the bike gets more towards the downhill category the wheelbase and stack both increase relative to the amount of reach. However this new trend is pushing things back towards the trail direction. I don't understand how you cannot grasp what I am saying.

But maybe your iq is past 152 in which case I submit to your superior intellect.

I correct myself, to be more precise the reach to front centre ratio would be more appropriate. We can forget the back half of the bike in this argument.

Hey I’m not the one who brought intellect into this bud. I have also responded to what you have said and explained the facts behind my argument, you are the one not understanding. You also have yet to respond to the 3 other logical fallacies I pointed out in your argument.

Even your first sentence is incorrect, perhaps go re-read what you have wrote or better still the entire thread from the beginning.
  • Previous Page

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.019179
Mobile Version of Website