EWS Rider Bike Size and Height Chart

PB Forum :: All Mountain, Enduro & Cross-Country
EWS Rider Bike Size and Height Chart
  • Next Page
Author Message
flag AyJayDoubleyou
FL
Posted: Oct 5, 2020 at 4:24 Quote
bigquotesHowever, top-level EWS riders are riding more and more like DH riders, where they pump and work every section of track.


True of the recent races, especially in the european alps; it is becoming a multistage DH race.

25 minute high speed south american stages may call for something different though, hence Joann Barrelli saying the Grim Donut would win one of those by a minute....
flag Danzzz88
Posted: Oct 5, 2020 at 5:09 Quote
As they say horses for courses, it's like some fighter jets are inherently unstable and would drop like a brick if not having 100s of computers to make it agile. There is no such thing as the perfect bike or geometry, at least not until shapeshifting and travel adjust becomes common place. We want bikes that go up, down and on flat all in one and perfect at all, that's like having an aircraft that takes off like a rocket, flys across like a glider and drops like a brick, you can't have it all.
flag splayleg
FL
Posted: Oct 5, 2020 at 7:00 Quote
AyJayDoubleyou wrote:
bigquotesHowever, top-level EWS riders are riding more and more like DH riders, where they pump and work every section of track.


True of the recent races, especially in the european alps; it is becoming a multistage DH race.

25 minute high speed south american stages may call for something different though, hence Joann Barrelli saying the Grim Donut would win one of those by a minute....
The last race there Hill did win by a minute and Barrelli is awesome but he and that grimdount is clickbait material at this point and does anyone really think the top racers don’t know what the fastest setup is for them?
flag theelias09
Posted: Oct 5, 2020 at 10:59 Quote
splayleg wrote:
AyJayDoubleyou wrote:
bigquotesHowever, top-level EWS riders are riding more and more like DH riders, where they pump and work every section of track.


True of the recent races, especially in the european alps; it is becoming a multistage DH race.

25 minute high speed south american stages may call for something different though, hence Joann Barrelli saying the Grim Donut would win one of those by a minute....
The last race there Hill did win by a minute and Barrelli is awesome but he and that grimdount is clickbait material at this point and does anyone really think the top racers don’t know what the fastest setup is for them?

Yes. Racers are conservative, they can only make changes in small increments otherwise they end up on something they are not adjusted to. Sam Hill didn't even go to a 29er until last year. Gregg Minaar also said something in an interview about having to go in baby steps with regards to geometry.
flag bocomtb
O+ FL
Posted: Oct 5, 2020 at 11:48 Quote
RAD/RAAD works well for comparing bikes with respect to one's own physiology. I'll grant that it's not interesting from a pure mathematical stand point. But what do you all think would be better?
flag bikefuturist
Posted: Oct 7, 2020 at 0:43 Quote
This is rly interesting stuff. And resonates with my own feelings regarding sizing.

Would love to hear more about the biomechanical reasoning behind RAD. Maybe I need to buy the book :-)

If considering an example like pumping a floor pump, it is evident you can use your upper body to a greater degree if your hands are in a more of a neutral position near your hips when compared to something like high above. But does this translate 1:1 to a dh stance?
flag Sambolo
Posted: Oct 7, 2020 at 20:55 Quote
What is interesting here also, is that only bike in that list with a modern progressive geo is the Privateer.

In some bikes the ETT and ST might not allow you to choose bigger size. It is not only about the reach.
flag whitedlite
O+
Posted: Sep 8, 2021 at 22:15 Quote
dmitri124 wrote:
So I think the main point is, you need a bike that fits you. Longer only works if you have been riding bikes that are too short (seems obvious!) but when people size up randomly thinking longer is better, well its only better if your current bike is too short! The problem is bike fit is an art in itself and most people look at Reach or Stack maybe but where I think Lee McKormack's RAD (Rider Area Distance) measurement is ingenious, is that it is a single measurement that you can map directly from your physiology to the bike independent of HA, StA, BB height etc.. its literally where your two contact points meet the bike when descending out of the saddle--> feet to pedal and hands to handlebar. If you go too long then you cannot apply appropriate levels of power to pump and generate speed dynamically as your ride position/posture puts your spine in a compromised position/risk of injury --> inhibiting certain muscle groups, same if bike is too short...Imagine doing a deadlift with your back either pronated or over extended and try not to get injured!

"That’s how Sam Hill measures his bike, he gets on any bike, no point telling him any numbers, he just gets a tape measure and measures feet to bars, and if it makes sense, then he’s happy, and away he goes. I do think that’s the only true measurement you can work off." Ali Beckett NP Designer

I really recommend "Dialed The Secret Match of a perfect Mtb setup" by Lee McCormack if you want to dive into this in more detail.
Here is an article for pb he wrote on the subject:
http://https://www.pinkbike.com/news/lee-mccormacks-guide-to-perfect-bike-set-up.html

Whats your RAD? Its easy to measure your bodies RAD (bottom of foot to centre of hand when standing with hands by your side). The problem is how do you know the RAD of a bike? You can measure it if its your own bike, but if you are thinking of buying a bike online you need to calculate via some trigonometry. I have a model that can do this based on Reach, Stack, stem length and spacers under the stem. But failing that here is an approx relationship between Reach and RAD from around 25 bikes I have modelled. Therefore as a starting point you could infer your ballpark Reach from the graph to deliver a certain RAD and fine tune with stem length, spacers, anglesets. Or you could use this equation: y = 0.925x - 305.37 where y = Reach and x = Rad, to calculate your Reach starting point.

e.g I measure my RAD as 805mm (I'm 176cm), this would give --> 0.925*805-305.37 = Reach of ca. 440mm.
Meaning if I bought a bike with a reach of 440mm, I could get it to fit me pretty well with some fine tuning.

photo

So once you have a riding position that fits (which is priority no.1) you can start to think about HA, Wheelbase, CS length, Stack to get a bike that descends well and corners well (combo of stability and front/rear balance/traction).
STACK: For DH/Enduro, a high Stack enables upright position and good vision, ability to descend steep terrain safely, too high and front tyre traction may be an issue in flatter/mellow terrain) --> personally I go high
Handlebar width: Needs to be proportionate to your shoulder width to keep stable and strong position (too wide and your shoulders are super compromised)
HA: Slack enables a longer FC without compromising the bike fit, you can extend the FC whist maintaining a short cockpit (64-65deg for descending biased riding is probably fine for most people)
STa: Steep seat tube angles seems a no brainer as it enables greater power transfer and reduced pressure on lower back
CS: Shorter for more pop, "manuallability" and pump with a more rearward biased weight distribution, at the expense of front wheel traction, Longer for more stability (longer wheelbase), shift weight bias to front slightly, reduce pop, pump and manual ability.
Wheelbase: Longer is more stable, but its where you get the length, just FC or balance FC and RC?
FC:RC: Balance between FC and RC, a ratio that is independent of bike size --> is there a golden ratio? Maybe but everyone is different, style, tracks etc.. Shorter and you get a corner carving, wheels on the ground feel, longer and you get a poppy, point and shoot plough that manuals out of corners if you hit them hard enough. So need to be aware of it but not too hung up on a perfect value. Somewhere between 1.7 and 1.8 seems optimal for the average p50 rider.

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.

Revival of a dead thread.

BTW, using your formula I come in at 460-465 reach.

Question, the frame I’m interested in comes in 450 reach / 1220 WB and 475 reach / 1245 WB. I’m obviously thinking the 450 reach for nimbleness however the 475 may fit better with a slightly shorter stem around 35mm. Both frames come with 45mm.

Ordering bikes online obviously makes RAD hard to do, so I’m very appreciative of the formula and any info you can provide. RAD makes sense to me as someone who does lift as a hobby and enjoys deadlifts, 565lbs was best for me before moving and life. The RAD measurement from palms to ground wearing riding shoes is measured at your strongest position for holding weight the lockout. Anyways. Thanks again.
flag Arierep
Posted: Sep 9, 2021 at 2:15 Quote
By the way, is anyone sure about Jack Moir's height? I've seen references all over the place on the internet, from 185cm to 193cm. On a recent IG post he looks barely taller than José Borges, who's 183cm
flag mtbtrekracer
Posted: Sep 9, 2021 at 2:42 Quote
Arierep wrote:
By the way, is anyone sure about Jack Moir's height? I've seen references all over the place on the internet, from 185cm to 193cm. On a recent IG post he looks barely taller than José Borges, who's 183cm

hes a little taller than me and im 183. i would put him about 188-190
flag Clarkk
Posted: Apr 7, 2022 at 5:05 Quote
My wife and I decided to buy a bike after consulting the women's bike size chart. It saves us a lot of time when choosing an expensive and suitable bike. You'll know you're getting the right size for a woman's bike if you can stand on the frame with both feet on the ground. You also have to swing your legs over the bike to check that getting on and off the bike is easy. Handlebars are also a great way to gauge your comfort level on the bike. You should not feel too tight when touching the handlebars of the bicycle.
flag Blownoutrides
O+
Posted: Jul 24, 2022 at 8:40 Quote
Danzzz88 wrote:
Thing with the RAD measurement is it doesn't tell the whole story, you could have a super short reach and high stack or a super long reach and low stack both giving the same RAD measurement but are polar opposites in terms of the bikes actual geometry. So yea maybe it tells you if it fits but it doesn't tell you at all how the bike will behave. Additionally you find with the new crop of bikes with steep seat angles the bike actually feels smaller and more comfortable and upright when seated so you can get away with a longer reach for standing whilst having better geo when sitting.

This. Just geeked out with the RAD idea and bought a bigger bike that I was able to match the RAD of my old bike by using a super short stem. Fits my body perfectly, but doesn’t corner nearly the same as it’s still got a front center that’s ~30mm longer.
flag Marahell
O+
Posted: Sep 24, 2022 at 0:59 Quote
Should we wear bike shoes when we are checking our height to pick bike size???
flag muerte
O+
Posted: Oct 2, 2023 at 5:22 Quote
Auto-XFil wrote:
This is data from the last year or so worth of EWS bike checks. I only included data where the rider height and bike info was readily available and looked reliable.

Very few riders are running really "progressive" geo or upsizing. A few are downsizing significantly. Most are running "new normal".

To recap something I posted in the comments, this is my current best understanding:

A long front-center (which is influenced by the head tube angle as well as reach) can decrease cornering performance if not accompanied by a lengthened rear end. You'll note some riders who are downsizing significantly are on bikes with short chainstays (Firebird, SB150).

A longer reach can provide more stability and allow the rider to relax and survive down the fall line, very useful for Enduro. However, top-level EWS riders are riding more and more like DH riders, where they pump and work every section of track. DH bikes are kinda short (in reach, not wheelbase) compared to 2020 Enduro bikes, and I suspect one reason pros downsize is their desire to backside features for speed, riding actively and aggressively.

EWS courses often involve very tight switchbacks, moreso than the modern purpose-built MTB trails most consumers ride.

Riders are also conservative, avoiding substantial change if their current setup feels good. At the same time, they generally look for any advantage. Each rider has a different balance of conservatism desire to take risks for possible gain. This will be reflected in their choices.

photo

For the amateur Enduro racer or trail rider, this is interesting data, but perhaps not to be taken too seriously. My own personal interpretation is that one certainly can be fast on a bike that's not super long, and I suspect it will reward a very active, pumping and pushing style that I am far from mastering, but enjoy working on. I might be giving up a little stability, but I'm compensating with longer chainstays (440) and slacker HTA (64.5), to keep the bike reasonably compact (465 reach, 40mm stem) for my 181cm height.

Are there more actual data available?
  • Next Page

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.015808
Mobile Version of Website