Pinkbike's Editors Choose Their Ideal Geometry Numbers - Vote For Your Favorite

Jan 4, 2019
by Mike Kazimer  
What if you were given free rein to design your dream bike from scratch. What would the geometry numbers look like? Would you create the longest and slackest beast imaginable, or would you create something a little more conservative, a bike that doesn't need to be ridden as fast as possible to come alive?

Pinkbike's editors answered those questions, and the results are below. Of course, there's more to a bike than numbers alone, but it's still fun to daydream about what your ideal off-road machine would look like, even if you don't have an engineering degree. It's an ever-so-slightly more advanced version of the doodles many of us drew in our notebooks when we were supposed to be paying attention in history class.

It's also interesting to see the similarities between the numbers, even though there was no discussion among the editors before they made their picks. There's only 3 degrees difference in head angle between Levy's ideal short travel bike and Paul Aston's 180mm monster truck. The same goes for seat angles too - they're all around 77°, although Aston's the outlier at 82°.

Take a look at the numbers, and vote for your favorite.





Mike Levy
Tech editor
Height: 5' 10''
Inseam: 33.5''

Ideal Geometry
Wheel size: 29''
Travel: 120mm rear / 120mm front
Head angle: 66.5°
Seat tube angle (effective): 77°
Chainstay length: 430mm
Reach: 460mm
Fork offset: 44mm
Specialized S-Works Stumpjumper 29 review test Photo by Trevor Lyden


Mike Kazimer
Tech Editor
Height: 5'11”
Inseam: 33”

Ideal Geometry
Wheels: 29"
Travel: 130mm rear / 150mm front
Head angle: 64.5°
Seat tube angle (effective): 77°
Chainstay length: 440mm
Reach: 470mm
Fork offset: 44mm
YT Capra Review



Daniel Sapp
Tech Editor
Height: 5' 9.5"
Inseam: 33"

Ideal Geometry
Wheel size: 29"
Travel: 140mm rear / 160mm front
Head angle: 65°
Seat tube angle (effective): 77.5°
Chainstay length: 432mm
Reach: 455mm
Fork offset: 44mm



Richard Cunningham
Tech Editor
Height: 5'7"

Ideal Geometry
Wheel size: 29"
Travel: 140mm rear / 150mm front
Head angle: 66°
Seat tube angle (effective): 76°
Chainstay length: 450mm
Reach: 440mm
Fork offset: 44mm
RC GT Sensor Carbon Expert Pro



Brian Park
Head of Editorial
Height: 5'7"

Ideal Geometry
Wheel size: 29"
Travel: 150mm rear / 160mm front
Head angle: 64.5°
Seat tube angle (effective): 77°
Chainstay length: 435mm
Reach: 440mm
Fork offset: 44mm



Sarah Moore
Content Manager
Height: 5’7”
Inseam: 27”

Ideal Geometry
Wheel size: 27.5"
Travel: 150mm rear / 160mm front
Head angle: 65°
Seat tube angle (effective): 77
Chainstay length: 430mm
Reach: 450mm
Fork offset: 37mm
Cannondale Habit



Paul Aston
Tech Editor
Height: 6’1”
Inseam: 33"

Ideal Geometry
Wheel size: 29"
Travel: 180mm rear / 180mm front
Head angle: 63.5°
Seat tube angle (effective): 82°
Chainstay length: 470mm
Reach: 500mm
Fork offset: 44mm





Which editor's ideal geometry numbers most closely match what you would pick?




Are we going to look back in 5 years and roll our eyes?


481 Comments

  • + 522
 69 head tube angle, 420 chain stays.
  • + 86
 I'm pretty upset I didn't choose this.
  • + 15
 710 reach?
  • + 31
 Semenuk goes bigger and faster than 99.999% of Enve rim owners on 69HA and sub 400 stays...
  • + 0
 @GuerrillaGravity: that is a bit less colorado but i accept.
  • + 7
 @WAKIdesigns: I hate agreeing with you but.. When you're right, you're right haha
  • + 36
 26 AIN'T DEAD
  • + 27
 No mention of bb height???
  • + 4
 @adrennan: 710 front center
  • + 0
 @WAKIdesigns: Its 5:00 somewhere waki, have another beer
  • + 1
 lol I laughed
  • + 7
 I'm between a @mikelevy and @danielsapp
  • - 8
flag zyoungson (Jan 4, 2019 at 20:53) (Below Threshold)
 @WAKIdesigns: truth
  • + 3
 @WAKIdesigns: Brandon is fast? I dont he could race a World Cup because he couldnt resist a cash roll on every jump and land to manual
  • + 3
 @owlie: yes he is fast by all standards. He is not World Cup top 20 fast which by all standards means insane fast. He isn’t super fast which by all standards means WC qualifier, but judging by his control and cornering skills from Raw100 videos he would qualify to a DH WC if he dedicated a year to prepare himself. Like T Vanderham did. Which cannot be said about 99.999999% of people in the world.

He would beat Nino in DH comp today. Discuss!
  • - 2
 @stinkbikelies what do you think.Hypothetical situation, this season Semenuk vs Nino, both on DH bikes, each has 3 runs, best one counts, both have 5 months to prepare. Who wins? My votes
Lenzerheide, Leogang: defo Semenuk
Ft William: possibly Nino
Andorra, Val Di Sole, LaBResse not sure, but I lean towards Semenuk, especially LaBresse, Andorra with big jumps.

Crankworx Air DH, Nino on Spark, Semenuk on Ticket FS: Semenuk wins.

XC and Downcountry crowd VS WAKi
  • + 7
 @TheBearDen: holy smokes please don't encourage him. If he reads this you'll be responsible for mailing him a larger helmet.
  • + 5
 @WAKIdesigns: hypothetically I will probably be out riding my bicycle and have no clue of what's going on. I prefer to spend most of my time in the woods away from society. Humanity has become hell on Earth.
  • - 11
flag WAKIdesigns (Jan 5, 2019 at 5:37) (Below Threshold)
 @stinkbikelies: oh, you missed an opportunity to become a hypothetical shit storm. There are people who believe in Nino! Because they own XC bikes and raced twice! You don' understand! XC racers can ride downhill! Someone must stand on their side in the comment section. Nino on flat pedals - we want to believe!
  • + 14
 Also every time I hear the word down country it makes me realize how freaking ridiculous this site has become. Maybe I will go out and buy myself an e-bike and start up country. Then start listening to new country on some new geometry on a new Trail on a new day that would be getting down.
  • - 9
flag WAKIdesigns (Jan 5, 2019 at 5:57) (Below Threshold)
 @stinkbikelies: When crossfit became big, weight lifters and gymnasts thought it was super lame. Then functional training came... tell me: do you adress imbalances in your body? Do you have elite range of movement? Are you stretching fascia like a pro? Glute activation? In the same way DH > Enduro > Down Country

Down Country - when riding chicken lines becomes a new form of mastery... ride through every hole and every bump on the trail and be proud of it!
  • + 2
 @owlie: its 420 somewhere this bud's for you
  • - 14
flag oldtech (Jan 5, 2019 at 6:19) (Below Threshold)
 @WAKIdesigns: I've always taken the big boy lines. Most of our local Trails I am the one that shovels those big boy lines out and creates them. Most mere mortals never even see the lines in the woods that I ride. Not to sound like a broken record but you are always welcome on a shred with me any day. You can also pitch a tent in my backyard. As for Big Air I am now in my middle forties and try to limit myself to nothing more than 35 foot gaps. Anything bigger than that and I think I'll throw the towel in or get my MX out.
As for physical stretching and physical fitness I feel I can run most college boys butts into the ground any day on a physical activity. Whether it's huffing 12 foot sheets of 5/8 drywall up to the 10th floor of a condo or push-ups and Pull-Ups. I'm still running 6 Minute miles and eat clean Whole Food. Haven't been to a fast food joint in over 20 years. I never back down from a challenge And when everybody runs away I am the guy that goes to see what everybody is running from.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: Semenuk goes bigger and faster than 99.9% of everyone alive on anything. Now Rheeder should start riding ENVE just to mess with your statement.
  • + 0
 @WAKIdesigns: I'm too old and my life is too short to worry about hypothetical. If we had bad weather today and nothing else to do I would sit on here and rant with you all day long but unfortunately it's 80° the sun is shining so I'm out of here. Stir the pot keyboard Warrior.
  • + 2
 @SupraKZ: people who do not believe aliens Walk Among Us I give you proof Brandon Semenuk Danny MacAskill Hans no way Ray
  • - 1
 @stinkbikelies: “Maybe I will go out and buy myself an e-bike and start up country.”

So would that be Outlaw Country?
  • + 2
 @brianpark: well at least the female knows how to party
  • + 1
 PB, write such article 5 years back and no one would even come close to 65ded HA statement. I ride numerous of bikes and I do no feel my rigid 71deg Salsa El Mariachi is 'holding me back' on those descents. The sus bikes I ride are in the 67-69deg area. They rock. All of our current bikes rock.
  • + 1
 28.99in wheels
  • + 2
 @stinkbikelies: well said! Me as well.
  • - 1
 @stinkbikelies: r/iamverybadass
  • - 3
 @nsteele: if you show up in my neck of the woods on our local Trails on an e-bike you will get to meet the outlaw lifestyle really quickly. Angry Trail Builders with shovels will come out of the brush and thump you quicker than an frisky mountain lion
  • + 3
 @stinkbikelies: it’s a country music joke, dumbass
  • - 1
 @stinkbikelies: Responding more than once to @WAKIdesigns is a exercise in futility. Hes just a cantankerous troll looking to boost posts on threads. Hell I dont think he even has a job. Nan har som trollz? One response is enough.
  • + 0
 @nsteele: I agree. Country music is a joke. Wink
  • + 1
 @Haddow-B: "26"... that number isn't familiar to me in mountain bikes :-)
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: ok. If he trained for a year he could be as fast as a qualifier. lettuce know when yer done blowin brandon. He doesnt race. and fast isnt in his playbook.
  • - 3
 @owlie: is your judgment about Brandon as accurate as about me? Downvoted on Pinkbike for propping a Freerider against an XCer hahaha, next thing you know people want short bikes.
  • - 3
 @nsteele: this is no joke it's true reality smartass
  • + 2
 @rrolly: what do you get when you play country music backwards? Your wife comes back your dog comes back the bank gives you your house and truck back and your friend quits banging your wife
  • - 1
 @stinkbikelies: Good luck with that I got side mounted gatling guns and a bar mount bipod on my Ebike.. I encourage the would be attackers to come forth!
  • + 1
 13 reach
  • + 1
 @brianpark: Brians bike almost exist in form of a Radon Swoop 2019, which is what i currently own and love...such an underrated Enduro bike sadly...and the BB is super low
  • + 1
 @pperini: innnnteresting.
  • + 126
 Why is everyone so short... only one rider above 6ft.
  • + 41
 Hate speech. My safe space is 400mm.
  • + 19
 More short people something something 95th percentile blah blah bell curve. In the end it made my choice easy being 6'3" meself.
  • + 124
 I feel personally attacked.
  • + 51
 PB editorial staff s mainly shortish people on mid-travel 29ers? Is 'Editor Bike' geometry a thing now? Dentists had their run.

Hold it down for the rest of us, Paul!
  • + 2
 Lol...which numbers sound good? Most of them. Which are closest to mine? Perhaps Levy's geo-wise... Maybe a tad slacker hta, but more travel. Which would actually work for me? Prob none. 6'3.5" in stocking feet, with long arms and legs (≥36" inseam), but I'm not crazy like Aston. Ah well. Fun is fun. Big Grin
  • + 43
 Pretty funny.

At 5'6" I was thinking: "No wonder they mostly like 29ers -they're all so tall"
  • + 16
 most of PB's staff are midgets apparently; that does explain some things.

in nearly 30 years of riding, I've never sat on a bike and though "this is too long". 500mm reach is almost acceptable. Almost.
  • + 5
 @Weens: you, sir, have been reported!!
  • + 7
 Paul is probably a hair below 6’. Short people love to measure themselves with their shoes on!
  • + 6
 50th percentile for white males is 5'9.5". For women, its 5'6".
  • + 5
 @Weens: midgets? The worldwide average male height is 5'9. Seems about right based on this cross section of population.
  • + 19
 @Savagegorillas: I'm 6' 2 & I can't stand 29'ers
  • + 8
 Being 6'3 myself, and mostly long arms and torso: 500mm reach, 430 or shorter chainstay, 76 STA, 65 HTA, no matter the travel or wheelsize.
  • + 8
 Agreed. 6'9" here, we need some Clydesdales at PB.
  • + 17
 this actually explains why none of them care about actual seat angles - thanks for pointing this out
  • + 0
 @Darknut: You, are an outlier!
  • + 4
 @endlessblockades:

MTB is the new golf.
  • + 6
 I saw a new golf with a MTB on top.
  • + 1
 @Aptlynamed: except way more fun with way more consequence!
  • + 2
 @BenPea: 400mm is one hell of a baguette.
  • + 0
 @Dethphist: so you're a midget then? Probably insecure about your height too. My experience, that's the kind of person that feels the need to point that out.

Anyway, average-height people should be riding size M bikes, right? That's what medium should mean; sized for a medium-sized person. How many of you 5'9 midgets are riding Ms, vs L or more?
  • + 0
 You've all been reported god damn it!
  • + 2
 @twozerosix: I don't think that's accurate for America, at least not for the Midwest. I'm 5'7" and the second shortest male I've ever met. So short that I can barely go to any bar without a group of tall guys starting a fight with me. I've never understood how so many people can commonly think "I bet my friends and I that are twice this dude's height ganging up one person will make me look tough". I've also never understood why only groups of guys pick on me...I've literally only been in 1 fight in my life against 1 other person, all the rest have been against 2 or more. Luckily, I've grown accustomed to it since I was a small child and can hold my own, but still 5'7" is enough of an outlier to make your life "interesting". I don't think it's 2 inches from average.
  • + 1
 @5afety3rd: Are you that guy when I was little that used to do the kids' PSA's about eating healthy while jumping from shelf to shelf in the fridge?
  • + 1
 @Warburrito: Dreyfuss Associates, ‘The Measure of Man’ reference book. Last updated several years ago, not long enough for the species to grow a few inches.
My bad though, that figure is for the USA population. Where most bikes come from Wink (can’t resist trolling)
You might just live in an area where whatever’s in the water prioritizes physical growth over, I don’t know, brain capacity Wink
  • + 6
 @Weens: I'm 5'9" +a bit, and yeah, I feel good on medium frames.

And, if you wanna call it midgetry, that's fine, but just know any car, airplane seat, roller coaster, counter top, work bench, door knob, elevator button, bar stool, bed, sleeping bag, tent, couch, chair, table, desk, whatever you can think of, is probably designed to fit me just about perfectly.
  • + 1
 @rrolly: link to vid? lol
  • + 3
 @Dethphist: believe me, I'm aware that the world is build for much shorter people. I can't even walk around my house without lowering my head in places. And I can't do anything about it, so I call those of average height midgets. If that gives you butt hurt, take solace that yes, the world is built for midgets like you.
  • + 1
 @Mikekazimer knows the struggle of telling a girl your 5’11” and having them view your like your a midget.
  • + 1
 At 5'7" you should be around 150lbs...the feedback, especially for suspension, is going to be drastically different than for someone who is above 6ft and/or over 200lbs. Many riders should note the reviews with skeptical hippo eyes
  • - 1
 @Dethphist: the only thing that is not designed for you?


woman's attraction towards you! :-)
  • + 101
 D O W N C O U N T R Y
  • + 260
 SmALL Mountain
  • + 28
 @karoliusz: You'll go far with this one, my friend.
  • + 25
 @endlessblockades: agreed. @karoliusz this comment puts you into the Pantheon of Trolls. You are one of the greatest.

In memory of Protour...
  • + 8
 @WAKIdesigns: WAKI, Du alter Schwede Wink
  • + 8
 @WAKIdesigns: May the chainstay length of the Demo grow forever.
  • - 8
 Out of curiosity, why not—say, a 30mm fork offset? 31mm? 43mm? Split the difference and go with 40mm? My calculus says 12mm. I wonder what the manufacturers' calculi say. I personally want a 77.6 degree (effective) seat tube angle.
  • + 3
 @karoliusz: Pretty sure you won PB for today. Nice work and enjoy your prize.
  • + 2
 D O W N W I T H C O U N T R Y

preach, brother. Wink
  • + 55
 Aston's is ridiculous and at the moment has the most votes, LOL. None of you are buying a bike anywhere near that, puhlease. Ideally I'd like two bikes. Levy's for most days and then Daniel Sapp's for the rowdier weekend days.
  • + 50
 Uh 180 is the correct travel for most everything that PB used to stand for. Mr. Sapp's 140 rear does not say 'rowdy weekend' to me.
  • + 2
 @yupstate: Nailed it.
  • + 10
 @endlessblockades: Its not the size its how you use it. Wink
  • + 6
 @yupstate Yeah, it's ridiculous but this is pinkbike where most of the guys ride only park. Wink
  • + 5
 It's basically a Pole or Geometron. But after watching the geometry vids, those bikes are far too long for me and my style of riding, and his preferred has too much travel. Bike I just bought as a size large is:

My height: 5'11"
Wheel size: 29"
Travel: 135mm rear / 160mm front
Head angle: 65°
Seat tube angle (effective): 75°
Chainstay length: 430.5mm
Reach: 473mm
Fork offset: 44mm
Bars/stem: 770mm/50mm

I voted for Kazimer's numbers... pretty close to my own.
  • + 2
 I've got two bikes very similar to that and I voted for him. Puhlease.
  • + 10
 Pole Stamina XL
  • + 5
 82 degree sta, get real buddy. Should have put a wheelbase option on there so they could show their asses.
  • + 2
 @islandforlife: A Large Chromag Surface with a 160 fork. ;-)
  • + 5
 These entries are almost useless without where (what terrain they ride) included. Unsound premise - there is a single ideal geo/travel for mtn bike based on your body size. Bout as good as arguing beef better than fish. f*ck me - i love you all - but i hate stupid arguments - because they are usually pedalling shite!
  • + 4
 @islandforlife:

Fugitive LT, baby!
  • + 3
 My bike is longer and slacker than his and I'm shorter so I don't find it to be ridiculous at all. If anything I'm surprised he didn't go for 530mm of reach!
  • + 1
 @banffowen: nice bike but it’s a Knolly Fugitive LT with a 160 fork.
  • + 1
 @WasatchEnduro: yep! And with a 160 fork.
  • - 6
flag lkubica (Jan 4, 2019 at 23:50) (Below Threshold)
 Geo is a bit ridiculous, but other guys simply want not enough travel. A 140 bike will bottom out frequently if you ever jump, not every landing is smooth. This in turn may damage the bike. You really get no penalty for 160-180 travel theese days.
  • + 6
 You are so wrong sir. I would by that 180/180mm 29er and smash the sh*t out of the bike park. I have other bikes for pedaling all day so it's not for that type of riding. Someone just needs to make a price friendly aluminum version that's not in the Pole Stamina price range. If that happens my Slayer goes in the buy/sell immediately. It seems like bike companies chicken out around 165-170mm in the rear with 29ers. Don't be scared bike making man, go full 180/180mm 29'er build around 33-35lbs. We will buy them.

BTW, I don't want your 40lb aluminum 29er DH bikes. Too fat.
  • + 4
 @shredb4dead: Ok I take it back. You and Paul Aston would buy one...so they'd sell 2. :-)
  • + 1
 Except me. And it's awesome.
  • + 2
 @shredb4dead: You have many friends hiding in the shadows. My money is ready.
  • + 1
 Aston's is the Pole Stamina.
  • + 1
 @RLEnglish: Honestly I only want the seat angle to be 77-78 dregees with all the other numbers he posted. Just need someone to build it at a reasonable frame price. Someone will eventually.
  • + 1
 @AspidMan: Fark that! Ive ridden park twice.. I'll take earning my turns any day! Tech climbing is sick!
  • + 1
 470mm chainstays?? Really??
  • + 2
 @cole-bikeva: exactly, size M, getting one.
  • + 2
 @yupstate I would buy that bike in a heartbeat, if I had the money.
  • + 2
 So... One question for you guys who are raving about the park/dh thing that is Aston's creation. Since it's so awesomely downward-oriented, long, 180mm 29er, super slack hta, long chainstays and reach, and a wheelbase to span the Pacific Ocean, blah blah blah… why the heck does it have such a freakin insane steep STA, (which is supposedly for better climbing)?!
  • + 2
 @endlessblockades: I am so uncomfortable with a sentence that starts with "Mr. Sapp's rear" and ends with says "rowdy weekend."
  • + 4
 "Are we going to look back in 5 years and roll our eyes?". Yes
  • + 1
 @mtbikeaddict: Steep seat angle because you will have to traverse the pedaly bits on trails that are supposed to be "Downhill Trails". Like I mentioned above, I'm fine with a seat angle around 77-78 degrees.
That said I'm not sure why everyone who doesn't want one has to chime in. If you don't want one don't buy one.

Oh I forgot, because Pinkbike.
  • + 2
 @mtbikeaddict: Because they're contrarians. They have to be different and unique so people will see what badasses they are. Same reason they would probably love a band, but then once that band becomes popular and sells albums, they won't like them anymore because they are "too commercial". I mean seriously, when asked to choose what your IDEAL GEOMETRY is, so far the option with the highest number of votes is a 180/180 monster with numbers that are unheard of. This is like voting for Sanjaya. I'm sure I'll see all you guys on your 180mm monsters tomorrow on the trail. Happy riding.
  • + 3
 @cole-bikeva: So based on the voting I'd have to assume the Pole Stamina is an extremely high volume seller? This must be extremely popular and a common site on most trail systems? I mean if the bike with your IDEAL GEOMETRY exists and is just waiting to be snagged, the snagging must be occurring in record numbers!
  • + 4
 @lkubica: rarely bottomed out my fuel ex when I had it with a volume spacer set up properly and that's 130 rear with a 140 pike up front.. Hucks to flat included... Now I'm on the sb130 and that thing takes even more abuse.. Its all about set up man!
  • + 10
 @islandforlife: we should probably start calling him Pole Aston
  • + 3
 @yupstate: apparently, you missed the "dream bike" part of the feature. This isn't "guess what the editors favorite bike is by looking at the numbers". However, your assumption that people don't want 180/180 is absurd. Everyone who rides Enduro or DH would be choosing that easily.over the others and by my scientific calculation, that is exactly 92.67% of the Pinkbike audience.
  • + 3
 @bohns1: You can set up any bike not to bottom out on huck o flat. But your suspension setup will be a compromise. If you have trails with both g-outs and very rough sections, you cannot achieve good setup no matter what. The less travel you have, the more it is complicated/impossible. A 180 bike is simply easier to set up for different conditions.
  • + 1
 Sick Bikes Sleipnir is a 180/180 gearbox 29er - should sell thousands of them according to this poll
  • + 1
 @yupstate: What do you expect from low IQ 'voters'? Follow the herd. It's the easiest, and you'll have more 'friends'.

It doesn't surprise me based on what I see people bringing to the local Xc loops.

Regarding bands; that is a poor analogy. A lot of times the quality of music a band produces turns to shit once they become commercial/get signed. See it all the time. In sports too. People work their asses off to get paid then say "f*ck it" and just cash the cheques.
  • + 1
 @zede: Winner! Big Grin
  • + 3
 @JohanG: what´s unreal about 82? Really progressive bikes are pushing 80deg ATM and most owners still slide their saddles all the way forward on the seatpost, which makes it roughly 82-83deg depending on the saddle rails.
  • + 3
 what? I literally own almost that exact bike. I am 6'2". It's not ridiculous if you arent a midget.
  • + 1
 @mtbikeaddict: For better climbing.
  • + 1
 I've ridden the Pole Stamina prototype (pretty close to Paul's numbers) and can say that that 180/180 bike pedals as well as my 140mm bike. It's quite something. If you don't lose anything while pedalling, why not have the extra travel? I only had two days on it, so this isn't a be-all/end-all review or anything, but from the limited time I had with it, I'd say that if there ever was a true quiver killer, the Stamina is it.
  • + 37
 Sarah, because it's the only 27.5 on the list
  • + 7
 +1

But people should call it 650B, it’s originally a french size, not an imperial size. Then again, if they had chosen 650A from the start then there would have been closer to a middling wheelsize. 26” (ISO 559 mm), 650B (ISO 584 mm) vs. 650A (ISO 590 mm), 29” (ISO 622 mm). Sorry for going Sheldon Brown on you Wink
  • + 4
 I voted none of them as there was too many 29ers and i got quite disappointed.
  • + 1
 @animatedcorpse: The first and last time I listened to Sheldon brown, I built a wheel or something that looked like one at least. Haha
  • + 35
 Also feel like they’re just basically regurgitating what’s on trend right now.
  • + 18
 Archived this for reference in 6 nano secs when the trends have moved and they do this again and have totally different numbers
  • + 6
 @freestyIAM: 6 days until they’re complaining that steep seat posts are making riding positions to cramped.
  • + 5
 Definitely going to be interesting to look back on this in 5 years and see what direction bike development has gone.
  • + 3
 @brianpark: Right now I look back to the last 5 years and the conclusion is always. WTF, take my money, WTF. There was nothing wrong with my 2013 V-10 or 2012 Covert. Plenty of travel, 26 inch wheels, no stupid standards, and a whole bunch of people who were actually riding DH bikes at resorts and trail bikes on trails. Oh, the good ol' days. Just like the 5 years prior, and the 5 years prior to that. No bikes to overly slack head angles compensate non-existent skills.
  • + 26
 As a tall 6'5" rider, I still haven't found a bike long enough that I'm 100% comfortable with. I make due with what I have (a 500mm reach size XL Transition Smuggler), but with seat tube angles getting steeper, that just brings me closer to the bars. So really...my "perceived reach" feels only a little longer compared to my last two bikes (a 450mm reach Niner WFO and a 465mm reach YT Jeffsy). I haven't ridden the super long Pole/Geometron/Mondraker bikes, but I feel a reach even longer than theirs would finally feel right.
  • + 4
 I'm with you. My hardtail is "long" at 480mm reach, but I'm all arms and legs. Really looking at XL Starling Murmur Factory, 515mm reach.
  • + 9
 The XL pole is a monster
  • + 2
 Nailed it with the correlation between sharper seat tube angles and reduced reach.
  • + 9
 I'm the same height and just got XL pole evolink, 535mm reach it's great, feels like your on a trainer going up, so roomy and stable going down
  • + 4
 I hear you man, at 6' 4" tall my seat is literally on top of the rear axle on my bike with an 86 cm seat height and 74 deg. seat tube angle. It's getting harder to find a good fitting bike for a tall person. Most of the new XL frames have a 495 seat tube height. I could easily run a 200 mm dropper on my bike with a 520 mm seat tube. Reach is less of an issue to me since my height is mostly in my legs and not in my torso and arms.
  • + 1
 I'm going on 6'4" and race XC so an Evolink 110 is definitely on the short list. No other XC bikes with those numbers. Nearly 100mm longer than anything comparable to it.
  • + 1
 I hear you! I am a bit over 6'7'' huge wingspan and long legs. I ride an newer enduro 29. It's by the far the best feeling bike I've rode, and feel pretty comfortable on it for the most part. As you've mentioned the Pole has been an interesting consideration and the Nukeproof mega comes in with a fairly long reach as well. They are both future considerations, but so far I am pretty content. Love the big travel on the enduro, swapped everything to Fox (X2 and Factory 36). Put a 170mm fork on an added a spacer under the stem to give me a bit more stack.
  • + 2
 I am 196cm, roughly 6'5" with short torso and long arms and legs.
I tested several bikes (up to 510mm reach) but never anything close to Pole or Geometron which I would give a go in a heartbeat but definitely too slack for my riding.
Wheel size: 29" (2.5/2.6)
Travel: 130mm rear / 150mm front
Head angle: 66°
Seat tube angle (effective): 76°
Chainstay length: 445mm
Reach: 540mm
Fork offset: 42mm
Bars/stem: 800mm/40mm

Nope, it's not Yeti SB130 I copied, but bespoke @Robotbikeco. R130.
  • + 9
 I love hearing from other tall peeps. I'm 6'3" and ride an XL Bronson 2. I'm pretty proportional as far as limbs and torso, but I think the bike sizing is interesting. I live in the Northeast US, so lots of super tight trails that weave tightly among trees and my bike feels massive pushing through these trails. So I keep seeing bigger and bigger bikes and all I can think is how awful they would be to maneuver through these trails.

As far as strictly from a bike fit perspective, I want a 200mm dropper but otherwise I find the fit spot on, small enough that its playful and fun to pop off bonus lines, but roomy enough that when speeds pick up and trails straighten out I have room to move. I could picture having a longer DH bike but not a trail bike.

What about you guys? What's your local trails like? Does that affect your feelings on this?
  • + 2
 Starling Murmur with cutstom geometry should solve your problems once and for all
  • + 2
 @listeryu: Murmur is very tempting option but I feel like its linear single pivot suspension and forgiving but little wobbly construction of steel won't be exactly cup of tea for some of these giants.
I almost got one, sadly had to cancel order due to several reasons. I regret it to this day.
Also Starling can make front frame with reach up to 535mm what should be enough for anybody but really the tallest among us and for those there is Nicolai's Geometron.
For me the definitive (super)bike is RobotBikeCo with its 3D printed titanium lugs and carbon tubes that can be made to any lenght.
  • + 4
 I'm 6'4" with long legs. I ride 180mm cranks and like 74 deg. seat tubes. It could be due to the fact that 74 has been just about the standard since i started riding in the late 80's but I think it has more to do with effective reach. A super steep seat tube means getting behind the saddle to get low, which is a PITA and takes more effort. Even on a 29er going over the bars is pretty easy when your center of mass is as high as mine. I just feel cramped on most other largest size bikes i have tried. Not so on the XXL Hightower LT. 500mm reach, but the saddle is farther behind the bars than on some other brands. Not too long ago all anyone considered was stand-over and Effective TT. Reach and Stack are useful but not the whole story.
  • + 4
 My buddy @pacificnorthwet is 6'6" and loves the geometry on his XL Nukeproof Mega 290. 515mm of reach with a 75.5* seat tube makes this thing quite the beast...
  • + 3
 Steeper seat tubes and slacker head angles have been a solution for small and extra small road bikes for this reason for a long time. It reduces the ETT and makes sure the wheels are still where they ought to be. I'm a little surprised that some women's versions of mountain bikes do the opposite, like the Liv version of the Giant Reign. Shorter riders would benefit from reduced ETTs, the slacker head angles and steeper seat angle are nice bonuses that go with this to improve the handling.
  • + 0
 @OGTallPaul:
I'm almost exactly your size, in the Northeast, and on a first gen XL Bronson. I haven't had too much problem with tight stuff. I've always been curious about later gen Bronson's but am a bit worried that it will feel like a bigger bike on my local trails.
  • + 1
 @millsr4: I came here to comment the XL NukeProof Mega is huge. My buddy is 6'6 and he's literally scraping together every penny he can find to buy one
  • + 3
 @Telemahn: I’m with you on this. At 6’5” I just can’t ride a bike with a steep STA. For me there are three factors in play here:

* Even with a 500mm reach, I feel way too cramped with a STA over 74.5 deg. It is awkward to ride because my knees bang the bars in tight uphill corners and the saddle is too far forward when dropped.
* I ride road bikes quite a bit and like my mtb position to be fairly similar. I don’t ride a TT bike anymore so I don’t want my mtb to feel like one.
* I don’t like the forward weight bias of steep STA bikes. I feel that it taxes the fork too much and rear wheel traction suffers.

Sure, on steep climbs it can be a struggle to keep the front end down but it is more balanced everywhere else especially on rolling, pedally terrain.

BTW, I ride an XXL HTLT and an XXL Tallboy and really like the sizing and geo of both.
  • + 1
 @Highlander406: At least you have the option. A 170 dropper slammed barely works for me on a seat post tube that's 495mm (Reverb on a XL Sentinel I rode last spring). I'm 6'3.5" tall, all torso and arms. Luckily short wheelbase bikes work well in my local area.
  • + 6
 I'm 6'9" and have an xxl Guerilla Gravity Smash, 530 reach, 685 stack, 430 cs. Its amazing!!
  • + 2
 * I don’t like the forward weight bias of steep STA bikes. I feel that it taxes the fork too much and rear wheel traction suffers.

@bogey: This is an issue climbing?! I can't imagine that would ever be the case going up a hill with my understanding of physics...
  • + 1
 I’m a touch over 6’3 and ride an XL Orbea Rallon, had an XL Hightower before this. To me, everything feels great on the Rallon, but one thing that I always want on almost every bike I’ve ridden is a higher cockpit. So, I got a 50mm rise handlebar and have 2 1cm spacers under the stem. This feels great, I feel like it puts me in a much more neutral position, I’d even go higher if I could. One thing that I wouldn’t mind is a soghtly longer reach, but a 485mm reach is still not that short and in the grand scheme of things is totally fine. Steeper STA helps a lot on climbs, it’s awesome to for once be able to put my seat back on the rails. Chainstays feel balanced at 435mm. 170mm cranks are something new, and feel great on DH but I’m wondering if they’re what’s causing some sight knee pain on the ups.
  • + 1
 @millsr4: did I mention climbing in that sentence anywhere?
  • + 1
 @bogey: I believe that conclusion has been drawn (generally) because when else would you be sitting down?
  • + 3
 I'm 6'3" and all arms and legs. I ride an XL Guerrilla Gravity Trail Pistol. 515 mm reach, 673 mm stack, and 76 STA. I've never had a more comfortable bike, although I think some 40 mm rise bars would make it even a little better. Guerrilla Gravity makes the perfect bikes for tall guys.
  • + 0
 @Chadimac22: er, no. Reduced TT maybe.Was
  • + 1
 Reach had nothing to do with seat angle. Its the BB to head tube measurement center to center.
  • + 4
 @ZappBrannigan: I sit down all the time on flatter and rolling trails. Lots of the trails that I ride traverse mountains or loop around in not so hilly areas and I sure wouldn’t want to be standing the whole ride.
  • - 3
 Sick! Bicycle Co forty deathwish...front 160 rear 140 mm travel 4130 steel frame
chek the adats..
Seat Tube length : M370mm L450 Xl 480mm
Chainstay Lengh : M456mm L45xl206mm Xl456mm
Bottom Bracket Drop: M20mm L20mm Xl 20mm
Head Tube Length : M110mm L120 mm Xl140mm
Head Tube Angle : M62 L62 Xl62
Seat Tube Angle : M77 L77 Xl77
Frok Axle To Crown: M555mm L555mm Xl555mm
  • + 1
 @headshot: you're right, it doesn't, but it does effect the feel of the bike. Think about a 73 degree seat angle will have all of our tall asses out over the rear axel of the bike. Sucks for climbing and a variety of reasons but with my center of mass that far back, it's more comfortable for where my hands grip the bars. That same bike with a 77 degree seat angle brings that center of mass while seated forward considerably. Thus, the cockpit isn't as far away and everything feels cramped. It's more about feel than numbers.
  • - 3
 @bogey: if you aren't climbing you should be standing up anyway so STA shouldn't matter.
  • + 2
 @tuxmek: damn, at 6'5" now I'm half considering a trip to Denver just to test drive one...
  • + 1
 @gbeaks33 you need a bigger bike. I'm only 1" taller than you and I couldn't ride the XL Sentinel. My knees hit the bar. I'm on a Geometron G16 and it feels good. The Niners and YTs have short rear ends, relatively slack seat tube angles and not tons of stack. You need all of this and you can really only get it from Pole or Geometron.
  • + 1
 @bogey: Sounds to me like your problem would be solved with a longer reach, perhaps 535mm or more. This would prevent you from hitting your knees. A shorter seat tube would help get the saddle out of the way when dropper.
  • + 5
 @SintraFreeride: Nope, I don’t want a longer wheelsbase and I don’t want a longer dropper.

I already have to slow too much on tight corners with the 1260mm wheelbase that I currently have. I’ve adapted my riding style to dive I’ve into the corners a bit sooner but beyond that, bikes are getting too long for my favourite trails.

I prefer to feel my saddle when dropped all the way down so I don’t want it to disappear by using a super long dropper. I have room to run a 200mm drop but will only go as far as my current 170mm. I firmly believe that these long droppers (200mm) only make up for bad form. If you look at good DH riders they actually run their saddles quite high.

Thanks for trying to Internet-fit my bike for me though!
  • + 1
 @bogey: I get that you want to ride flatter and rolling trails too and don't want to stand the whole time but you can still adapt and stand up when you see a compression coming... also, have you tried adjusting the balance between your front and rear suspension? It sounds to me like you may need to soften up your rear end and stiffen up the front a bit, or maybe play with some volume spacers?
  • + 1
 @bogey: Fair enough. I personally find that with longer bikes you have to lean the bike more in corners like you do when going to larger wheels. I personally prefer my saddle out of the way as it allows me to lower my center of gravity and conform better to the terrain especially on very steep sections. I have never understood why World Cup DH riders have their saddles skyhigh...
  • + 2
 they seem to be designing their bikes to ride super steep punchy technical climbs which steepening the seat angle will do but will also make everything else worse like long fireroad climbs which I do regularly. Like there’s only so much steep punchy climbs I can handle before I’m getting off and walking but I’ll crank fireroads all day.

Also I’m 6,3 bikes with 500mm + reaches feel horrible in my opinion.
  • + 1
 @MarcusBrody: so the second Gen works fine. I live NJ so we have a mix of more open trails and it's a machine there, but we also have a couple places that are famous for super tight winding trails with trees littering the interior apex. Lol. I haven't ridden the new one, but I know a couple guys who have and feel like it's become a decidedly "big mountain bike". I still find mine to be kind of perfect. I have it set up with a 160 fork and it's plenty fun at the bike park and on the flatter trails.
  • + 28
 Its 2019 people, HOW DARE YOU ASSUME MY GEOMETRY PREFERENCE!!! I may ride a trail bike but I identify as an enduro rider
  • + 25
 No 27.5 love from the boys...
  • + 9
 They haven't ridden 26 for so long they forgotten what real fun on a bike is...
  • + 23
 My latest project:

Front 29”+ 160mm
Rear 27,5”+ 130mm
Head angle 52,5
Seat angle 100 (-10)
Reach 550
Chainstay 500

Awake as fuk.
  • + 52
 Wokidesigns
  • + 1
 Want.
  • + 28
 Party in the front, hangover in the back.
  • + 10
 Wonkidesigns!
  • + 25
 Here it is. The Jerrymetron Kacheeng. Made of recycled carbon fibre frames picked up from the bottom of Taiwan straight. Moral supremacy is ours.

www.instagram.com/p/BsB3gT3FgNn/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=9jqihu5yussl
  • + 1
 @BenPea:

Liquor in the front - poker in the rear.
  • + 2
 I predicted this negative seat angle thing when I saw the Yetis in the head to heads. But Waki you are one sick puppy.
  • + 2
 @WAKIdesigns:

Holy sh#t, that rendering is golden!
  • + 2
 @WasatchEnduro: the message is simple. Watch out what you are hoping for.
  • + 2
 i seriously want to trail troll people this season with some mixed wheel super woke energy. it'd be so core.
  • + 1
 @underhawk: 29 rear 27,5 front.
  • + 21
 Scroll scroll scroll scroll oh hey 82 degree seat tube angle.
  • + 13
 A place to rest your beer belly when your arms get tired.
  • + 6
 There is a special tray on the stem that you can rest your balls on with a STA that steep. Nice bike.
  • + 15
 The dork is strong in this post.

Next tell us which water bottle size is your favorite. 12 oz, 16 oz, 20 oz, or stainless flask?
  • + 34
 Welcome to mountain biking. Smile

Artisanal cypress wood enduro™ goblets only.
  • + 2
 @brianpark: Dilly dilly!
  • + 9
 Definitely 16 oz. More agile than the 20 oz and more volume than the 12 oz.
  • + 16
 but the 20 oz climbs surprisingly well for what it is
  • + 0
 Well actually I ride with a backpack on my general rides, but on those half hour tech practice sessions I indeed just bring a hip flask.
  • + 2
 @brianpark: *Frech accent- We've already got one!
  • + 2
 @kookseverywhere: really comes alive when pointed downhill?
  • + 17
 26 ain’t dead
  • + 5
 it aint !!
  • + 4
 yes it is. next.
  • + 10
 @SnowshoeRider4Life: the one in my garage is an unkillable zombie
  • + 8
 Sometimes I enjoy riding dead stuff like 26ers, am I a necrophile?
would i need some help?
  • + 4
 @SnowshoeRider4Life: Guess you never heard of dirt jumpers or slopestyle bikes. 26 is forever.
  • + 1
 my bike still has HTA of 66.5, STA 75 (not that far off), my chainstay length is 419mm. hell, it should be a fun bike! I dont need a new bike yet!
  • + 5
 @SnowshoeRider4Life: 26 may die but it never should have, the problem is practically every bike these days are made for racing, freeride bikes should still be 26 friendly, as for practically everything else other than maybe a few super playful trail bikes 26 should be dead. In the end mountain bike companies almost exclusively make race bikes, which is why freeride outside of the banshee darkside is dead. 26 is the best for freeriders, slopestyle riders, and dirt jumpers and always will be.
  • - 1
 its a zombie dude, get used to it . BTW I ride 26" steel hardtail - but even i know 26 is a gonner
  • + 1
 I wonder what 26inch bikes would be like today if we had all the R&D that the other wheels sizes got the last 7 or so years. Hopefully 26inch park bikes will be back to being en vogue some day soon...
  • + 2
 @robito: thinking about this, when I look at my S-size 26, it looks in proportion, unlike some M and all L frames of its day. A bigger fork and longer stroke shock has modernized the angles but the BB seems a little high, which is actually reassuring if you're used to it. Maybe it's a little short, but if it wasn't it wouldn't go around corners. 05 Reign. I'm not sure how much RnD has gone into mainstream bikes in the last 7 years, other than "shall we just add/cut 1cm/degree there, etc." on an annual basis. Bar width and other peripheral stuff can already be tweaked to some effect. Long story short, I think big people have benefited from the evolution of wheel sizes and geometries way more than less big ones.
  • + 13
 This is stupid because it's really "who is closest to your height?" and/or "do you like slack head angles or super slack head angles?"
  • + 2
 Yeah being tall my self it made my choice quite simple.
  • + 14
 I mean... we only included height to put the reach numbers in context. Extrapolating from our numbers shouldn't be too hard. Smile
  • - 3
 @brianpark: so if it shouldn’t be too hard then how much reach should I add per added inch in height?
  • + 6
 @brianpark: "Extrapolating from our numbers shouldn't be too hard..." hahahahhahahhha, ha... you realize this is the Pinkbike comments section right?
  • + 1
 @islandforlife: not liking 29ers left with not much option haha
  • + 15
 Kooks. Just ride your bike. You are the limiting factor, not your bike
  • + 13
 I'd happily ride all of them apart from Astons. It'd be nice to hear reasons for these figures....
  • + 10
 470mm chainstay? Paul Aston's numbers are crazy if you want to ride a bike rather than a monster truck. BTW. long, low and slack..... Where is the low part (BB Height) in the numbers
  • + 1
 Paul is a DH guy, so long chainstays make sense. Short is good for going slow, but can feel unstable at speed.
  • + 0
 FYI my bike has a 460mm CS and I can corner just fine.
  • + 0
 Riding a 490mm chainstay at the moment with a 1340mm wheelbase. Done every switchback in Finale that I do on other bikes...
  • + 2
 @paulaston: What bike is that? The Mondraker Level?
  • + 1
 @Pavel-Repak: well spotted! It´s funny how mondraker can sometimes put bravely long chainstays on a bike and sometimes they totally miss their mark (New foxy is at least 10mm too short in CS for balanced handling)
  • + 13
 Run what you Brung.
  • + 1
 Yah man I sucked at geometry in high school
  • + 2
 What I like about geometry is that smarter people than me figure it out for me.
  • + 9
 (All the pinkbike editors, apart from Paul) 'so we are agreed, we are pushing 29er trail bikes for this feature?....

(Paul comes back from the toilet) 'did i miss anything guys?

Errrrr.....
  • + 11
 26 inch wheels 23 inch top tube.
Seat tube angle ? Yes it has one.
65 degree HT angle
Longish stays for that stable DH ride.
  • + 8
 I never was a numbers guy, 20+ years of me and my friends riding our bikes all the time. We didn't have social media, no cell phones. Just Shred everyday. Now it's numbers, Strava, Downcounty, Endrobro, you damn kids! I hate Math. This shit's out of control man! I want a mountain bike!
  • + 11
 It's the dawn of a new era at Pinkbike. Pick a geometry and be a dick about it...
  • + 5
 Please...call me Richard.
  • + 10
 And Paul Aston has been riding too many Ebikes if he likes a 470mm CS - try and manual that lol
  • + 0
 Just get better at manuals
  • + 6
 Maybe he just prioritizes going downhill fast. You don't do that manualing on your rear wheel usually.
  • + 1
 BMX for the manuals at the track. MTB's for mountain biking. I don't think there is any need to manual more than 1 metre on trail, unless you want to be Josh Bryceland.
  • + 3
 @paulaston:
Very true Paul. Just goes to prove the point that eveyone is different and there are plenty of different types of “mountain biking”.

For smashing down DH runs as fast as possible 470mm is your choice. 440mm max would be mine. And I’m 6’1 too :-)
  • + 6
 What really hacks me off more than press fit BB is integrated headsets. Us geo tweakers want to be able to stick in -1.5 degree anglesets. To many frame makers are dropping the bearings straight into the frame these days. Enough already!
  • + 9
 PB editors trading in their man cards for 29 inch wheels.
  • - 1
 Chris called it back in 2008. I also remember at the 2000 Worlds in Napa that Gary Fisher was competing in the XC race on a 29er. Makes sense that a majority of the PB staff sport 29ers.....despite height

Chris Sugai, at the time owner of Niner, is quoted in Feb 08's MBA saying:
"Twenty-nine inch wheels will supplant 26-inch wheel bikes by 2017. In ten years, all mountain bikes sold from $1000 to $1500 and above will have 29-inch wheels. There will be holdouts, of course, and 26-inch wheel bikes will be sold at places like CostCo and K-Mart, but the 29er will take the place of the 26-inch bike as far as the average mountain biker goes."
  • + 7
 @rivercitycycles: Guess people like to take the easy way out. When the riding gets rough, go with a 29er. Might as well put a motor on the thing.
  • + 14
 @chriskneeland: I assume you ride a rigid singlespeed?
  • - 4
flag chriskneeland (Jan 4, 2019 at 13:56) (Below Threshold)
 @brianpark: That's always the faux argument. People pretend 29ers are part of the evolution of mountain biking, but it's not. 29ers are only faster for slow people. For people who ride with a high level of skill they're clunkers. The next generation is going to start out on wagon wheels and never realize their riding ability is being stunted.
  • + 15
 @chriskneeland: your ass ever get jealous of your mouth with the amount of crap coming out of it?
  • + 10
 @chriskneeland: which is exactly why so many professionals in all disciplines are still riding 26, correct? Hilarious.
  • + 5
 @BiNARYBiKE: Moving up from 26 was the hasty reaction of riders to the introduction to larger wheels. Josh Bryceland won the the overall on 26 inch wheels when most of the field was on 27.5. Laurie Greenland said his test times were faster on 26 even after a season on 27.5. The industry abandoned 26 for fake hype.
  • + 2
 @chriskneeland: Wow what a slacker, you need 26" wheels to ride? What a bandaid, get on the 24" train and learn how to really ride.
  • + 1
 @gnarnaimo: I think I learned riding on 12". Crashed loads but never gave up. I think I'm a better rider now than if they'd wrapped me inside some 29" tires back then.

Kidding aside, I've no worries about 26". I've no intentions going up to the bigger wheel sizes and now that UCI has finally dropped the ban against dissimilar wheel sizes in competition, more (smaller) racers will run 26" in the rear again. Big tire and rim manufacturers have kept on offering their newer models in 26" and they'll continue to do so.
  • + 4
 @mikekazimer Maybe its better suited to another poll, but I think it would interesting to here the staffs views on rear suspension designs and their preferences. DW link, DELTA, Horst link, single pivots, Switch, VPP, Maestro,etc.
  • + 4
 Would be interesting to see stack height and BB height preference with these and what size stem they are envisioning. Steep seat tube angles and slack head tube angles are going to feel cramped in the cockpit. There is so much more to a good feeling bike than I want these numbers and these numbers.
  • + 6
 Reach is a sizing metric. Shouldn't even be there.

Weight distribution, front/rear centre length ratio is by far the most important geo number.
  • + 2
 Could maybe extrapolate that roughly from rider height/reach.
  • + 1
 If we had stem length, bar widthyou could extrapolate that.
  • + 4
 None of these numbers is even remotely close to what I'm running and I like what I have now.

63deg HTA
460mm reach
415mm CS
400mm seat tube
120mm fork travel (no rear suspension)
don't know the seat tube angle (nor do I care)
26" wheels
  • + 2
 Not too shabby. What hardtail are you rolling that has 63 HTA and 26" wheels? Just asking for a friend.
  • + 1
 @JDFF: My friend wants to know too.
  • + 2
 @JDFF: BTR Ranger
  • + 1
 @vinay: ah, ok. Nice frame for sure! Dedicated to 26" or just rolling what you have?
  • + 3
 I don't know why people complain about slack head angles impairing climbing. My Ranger with 63.5 HTA climbs far better than the two full suspension frames I've owned and the downhills are well within my skills.
  • + 1
 @JDFF: Thanks! Maybe dedicated is a big word but I didn't see the point of switching to a new wheelsize when I don't have to. My previous hardtail frame was a ten year old DMR Switchback (26" wheels) and I still have a Cannondale Prophet (26" wheels) and I feel it is nice to be able to swap tires and wheels when something is broken and I still want to ride. There as still incompatibilities (axle standards) but that's just a matter of endcaps. I actually rarely ride that fully anymore but I was thinking a slackerizer headset would bring the headangle down to 65.5deg. And maybe a more modern rearshock. The 63deg headangle of the hardtail might come across as relatively slack compared to the numbers in the article. But the bike in the article have bigger wheels and rear suspension. BTR steepens the head angle for the bigger wheeled versions of the Ranger. And the number is for the unsprung geometry. When sagged the head angle steepens (unlike full suspension designs) so they compensated for that.

The geometry of my BTR is basically their geometry for the large 26" model, but I wanted to the seat tube down to 400mm. I've never done it, but I wanted to be able to have the saddle at XC height should I ever want to. That requires the seatpost to extend 300mm above the seat tube. A rigid 400mm allows that (typically 100mm minimum insertion) and a fully extended dropper seatpost these days can also reach that. I usually have my saddle lower than in these pictures though. I only had it this high to be able to clamp the seatpost in my workstand. My other requirement was that I wanted to have the top tube so low that even with cranks level, I could have my knees above the top tube so that it feels pretty unrestricted. So yeah, these were the only modifications I made to the geometry. For the rest I trusted their standard geometry and I'm loving it the way it turned out Smile !

@Heywood165 : You've got number 165? I've got number 166 Smile . Indeed the slack head angle is no issue for climbing. The reach is good enough to put your weight exactly where you need it to be.
  • + 3
 Height: 5' 10''
Inseam: 32.5'
Wheel size: 29''
Travel: 130mm rear / 150mm front
BB height 338mm
Head angle: 66.3
Seat tube angle (effective): 76°
Chainstay length: 430mm
Reach: 455mm
Fork offset: 44 or 51 - cheapest I can find on pink bike
  • + 1
 Pretty close to SB130 w/ 51mm offset
  • + 3
 Because the heigth of the rider is super important, the geo of this "dream bike" is designed around a 1,70m rider.

Travel :160 front, 160 to 140 rear
Wheels: 29F(or larger) - 26R
headtube: 65º
chainstay: 350mm (The radius of a 26'' wheel is 330mm)
seattube: 76º
reach: I don't really know but 440mm seems ok (meant to be run with 30mm stem, or something shorter)
BB height: 330m
-Gear box driven
-Very high pivot
-Low stand over, low top tube, short seat tube, meant to take advantage of 170mm dropper posts
-Low antisquat meant to take advantage of shock lockout on the climbs, but at same time not compromising bump absortion on the descents
-Meant to be run at 10%-20% sag in order to maximize the amount of "usable" travel, and also keep the chainstay quite short at sag
-Short offset fork
-35mm rim's 2.35-2.5 tires
  • + 4
 I could care less what anyone else rides. I care even less about those who try to tell me what to ride. Herd mentality is continually propagating in 'modern' society. Thanks, progress.
  • + 3
 Height: 5' 9"
Inseam: 31.5"

Ideal Geometry:
Wheels: 29" front / 27.5" rear
Travel: 170mm rear / 170mm front
Head angle: 64°
Seat tube angle (effective): 77°
Chainstay length: 435mm
Reach: 460mm
Handlebar Width: 780mm
Stem: 35mm
Fork offset: 44mm
  • + 1
 @Xorrox : close enough for me id ride it Smile
  • + 1
 You lose 1/2 the benefit of 29" wheels by going 27.5 in the back. Rear wheel traction while climbing is a great benefit of a 29" rear wheel. Also eliminates the ability to swap tires from front to rear when they start to wear, and always have a fresh front tire. Other than the mismatched wheels, this geometry is ideal for me too.
  • + 1
 @tetonlarry: Hahaha I dont climb I mainly ride bike park and shuttle trails and I also dont swap tires front to rear I just run them till they die!
  • + 1
 @rockchomper: I run DHR2's front and back. As soon as the front tire shows any wear, I move it to the back and discard the old back tire. I'm still on a 27.5 Bronson, but my next bike will definitely be a 29er. My brother has a wreckoning, and I really like the way it rides.
  • + 1
 @tetonlarry: Yeah it depends on your priorities; 29" front, 27.5" rear is definitely more for the person who values descending prowess over climbing ability; it would not make sense for XC riding.

27.5" in the back gives you more pop over jumps and obstacles, less chance of going OTB (better 'plowability'), more butt room when hanging out over the back tire, quicker acceleration (all things being equal, you have a lighter and stronger rear wheel).
  • + 3
 The whole year in your reviews a half degree in HA would be sooooo much better and here "It's also interesting to see the similarities between the numbers (...) There's only 3 degrees difference in head angle (...)"
ONLY 3 degrees? That's like 15 generations in the Theory of Bike Evolution.
  • + 3
 I think the most consistent number has to be effective seat tube angle. A lot of 77* responses! And then there's Paul Aston...

Are you paying attention bike manufacturers!? Steepen those things up! TIA
  • + 6
 Only one 27.5 choice? Wtf
  • + 2
 Really, seat angles so steep?

Some of us also pedal on lesser gradients between climbs and descents. I'll stick with something a bit less steep with a little push out on the chain stay to compensate for the climb. 64 to 66 degree HTA though is nice and 130 to 150mm rear travel is good too.

I must throw my leg over a Pole to see what all the raving is about to understand. Can't be to hard when spending most of my time freezing, my nuts off in the land of Santa....
  • + 4
 Shhh! How dare you raising your voice against the Holy SSA (steep seat angle) church??
Somebody in other article comented that too steep a seat angle isn't power efficient, as it forces you to use weaker groups of muscles, but hey,what does he know,right?
  • + 2
 LOL.... Assuming you pedal these bikes, I am not sure how you are not going to fry your knees with a 78 seatube angle? This is not debatable, you will damage your knees. Why is the B.B. drop value missing which is more important than most of the other values?
  • + 4
 Yeah why does no one talk about the affect of these angles on your body. Roadies are super specific about fit and will tell you a seat too far forward will damage your knees. Wonder if this is true.
  • + 1
 @Dogl0rd: there is tons of reading about fitting and the relationship between knees and pedals. Placing the knee too forward will result in overload and stress... won't notice much when you are 20 and ride for one hour... keep doing it for a while and the damage will be permanent.
The mtb industry needs to "innovate" i.e. produce new models to make the old stuff look obsolete and force the people to "upgrade"... 76-78 seatube with is just laughable....
  • + 0
 @RedRedRe: funny how roadies on rigid bikes (where sag change of SA is non existent) with 72-75deg SA are still able to walk after race...Your statement being misleading might have something to do with it.
  • + 1
 @Mondbiker: they are talking about 77+ after sag.... with a 0 seatback dropper.... roadbike use 20mm+ seatback.... If you ride for more than 2 hours or ever had a real road bike you know what is up.

Place the crank forward at 3 o'clock. The front of the knee needs to be vertically aligned with the pedal axel. Place the knee further than the pedal axel and you damage it. Fact.
  • + 1
 @RedRedRe: Who is talking about 77+ after sag other tan you? Show me one study that proves your point, one) and please find one that is not 30years old). I will ask you another question, do you value your knees more than hips? Or lower back perhaps? Or you will say f*ck those man, my knees are still ballin after your second fusion on L spine and arthroplasty on both hips. Because that´s what´s suffering if you don´t allow the knee to get in front of your toes, not to mention being bent like paragraph on the bike like roadies are.
  • + 2
 Can y’all measure the true seat angles on your ideal bikes? Because I don’t believe that the angles you’re quoting are actually the angle from BB to mid-saddle. I think you’re basing the angle on the effective seat angle of bikes you’ve tried, and that’s always more than the true angle at pedalling height, especially on 29ers with a fair amount of rear travel.
  • + 2
 Paul Aston is mental with that geo! We get it you're tall but an 82 degree seat angle? Just another bloke believing the ultra long low slack mantra is the answer to future. Mike Kazimer is probably closest to what makes sense for that category of bike.
  • + 2
 I am interested to try such a steep SA. In my testing, I have found that even a 79º seat angle feels better when the saddle is slammed forward, so the limit has not yet been found. If 82º is past the limit, I could still slam the saddle back on the rails and be in a similar place to what I know works for me.
  • + 2
 For all those saying a 77 degree seat angle is too steep, keep in mind these aren't road bikes. The seat angle ends up much slacker once you sag into 30% of your travel.

Also, when riding in steep terrain with big climbs you spend a lot of time in the saddle pointed up 10-25% grades. Much steeper climbs than most road rides. So roadie fit rules don't really apply.

If you ride flatter, more rolling terrain, or descend in the saddle for some reason, I guess these angles wouldn't be for you.
  • + 0
 "The seat angle ends up much slacker once you sag into 30% of your travel."

but the fork is sagging as well
  • + 1
 @xeren: Not at the same rate or anywhere close.
  • + 0
 @Mondbiker: lets say you're on a 140mm bike with 22% sag, 65deg HA fork and 30% shock sag. the difference is about 20mm.

and that assumes the front and rear travel are equal. on a 150/130mm bike, the difference is smaller

i'm not arguing 77 is too steep, btw.
  • + 1
 @xeren: sag for forks and shocks is typically measured in different manner (seated for shocks and attack position for forks), therefore on bike with same travel front and rear lets say 160mm F/R the seated sag is 30% while fork sag when seated is more like 10-15% and that is on flat surface, the balance shifts toward rear even more when you start climbing so it will easily go to 35% rear and under 10% front. In real world unless your bike has firm lockout the seat angle slackens by 3-4 deg on flat ground and goes down from there. Pretty significant if you ask me, bike with 77deg SA is then already slacker than road bike and that is still on flat ground, not actual climbing. Road racers(and XC racers) almost always stand up for steep climbs, I can only guess why is that...
  • + 4
 Why didn't anyone simplify their numbers and use Lee McCormack's hypotenuse??? haha
  • + 1
 I'm 5'11" with a 33" inseam. My ideal ride would likely be (I've never tried mixed wheel sizes however):

Wheels: R 27.5", F 29"
Travel: R 155mm, F 160mm (any longer of travel and there is so much weight transfer when you pedal that it's inefficient, regardless of rear suspension design)
Head Tube Angle: 65 degrees (works great on my Foxy 29 with the -1 headset)
Seat Tube Angle Effective: 76 degrees (not sure about this one, currently running an effective 76.1 and that might be too steep for me)
Chainstay Length: 435mm
Reach: 495mm (my Foxy at 490mm is just a hair short for my tastes)
Fork Offset: 42mm (mo better than 44mm)
BB Height 347mm (chunk requires some decent clearance combined with 170mm cranks)

Fun thread!
  • + 1
 what with you guys and long travel? is it coming to cover up for something?
120mm to 130mm this is the main stream do it all for the majority of riders and rides. Mike Levi rules.
"Best" geometry of today may change tomorrow.
but yesterdays geometry is still fun to ride, and will be a subject to argue about nothing instead of spending our time riding.
  • + 1
 26" with 170 mm spring fork. I don't remember other numbers. Just my bike keeps impressing me every time and I don't have to upgrade for years. Then I save money for visiting riding friends, shuttle services, and donation to athletes I like. Isn't it ideal ?
  • + 2
 Would of been interesting to see this survey without names attached. Wouldn't be surprised if a percentage people responded based on "who" they think they ride like. Not what the actual numbers mean????
  • + 1
 Everyone choose minimum 77* seat tube angle. Give it 3 years and companies might just catch up to what the consumer wants. Gotta give it time for those bike/frame sales with incremental developments, it's just good business sense
  • + 1
 The geometries listed are not complete. As always on this site, naked reach values are thrown around. Indepedently from wheelbase or stack values they have no meaning at all. From above numbers we can not conclude how long or for that matter any sort of size the bikes would have.
  • + 5
 Big wheels and huge reaches. Must bomb a lot of fire roads!
  • + 3
 There goes 27.5...My only company will be women judging from the list above. At 6'1" 27.5 feels fun. But what do I know, my riding uniform's made out of cotton.
  • + 1
 At 6'2 I wonder how I can possibly cope on steel hardtail with a 65 hta 160 fork but reach of only 450 plus 70 for the stem. And yet the thing is stable as anything and loves the steep stuff could it be that after a certain point the numbers mean sweet f all and it's all about what we are comfy with?
  • + 1
 It's so nice to comment on an articel that has absolutely nothing to do with preparing ground for yet another great come back of newold 29er which suppose to be new standard for 2019. By the manufacturers of course that new standard that is.

470mm reach is a must for L (up to 190cm rider)
  • + 3
 please someone do the numbers, but I suspect Aston's bike would have 1/2 mile wheelbase.

Sarah's sounds perfect for me at 5'9", 33" inseam.
  • + 1
 I love the way my bike is right now. I have a Commencal Meta V4 (not the 4.2), and after cutting the bars to 760mm (down from 780mm) and adding a reach-adjust headset (+5mm), it now feels dialed-in after 2 years of owning it.
  • + 1
 I would like to see them all on their geo-optimized bikes so we can check their saddle positions. A certain Guy K on BR tested a modern bike and wrote “the geometry is all-new, with a long reach (470mm, large), 66.5-degree head and 76-degree seat angle.” Yet the picture showed that he slammed the saddle rearward as much as possible... Maybe it was the stem or reach that was too short?
  • + 2
 I just ride whatever fits lol. I hopped on my range in the store, it felt nice, so I bought it. 2 years later I still have no idea what the geometry numbers are aside from the reach and suspension travel.
  • + 5
 A fucking year ago not one of these reviewers ever mentioned seat angles.
  • + 3
 everybody is talking about these numbers but no one really understand .. me neither but I don't care about it ahah
  • + 4
 That's not true, Aston has been banging on about 77° STAs and saying they weren't steep enough since 2015 at least. But even if it were—it's almost as if it's their job to keep learning and testing. Smile
  • + 2
 @brianpark: which bikes these days have 77 degree STAs anyway? I'm on a 2018 75 deg STA bike and I thought I was at the steepest end of the spectrum until I saw this article
  • + 1
 I'd love a bike review with actual measurements and not the numbers manufacturers spit out. "At my seat height of X mm with the saddle in neutral position the actual seat tube angle was Y degrees. In my preferred position it was Z degrees.". I'm curious if the testers all have a preferred setup or is it just a set the seat height and sag and go for a ride usually? I know that all I really care about is seat height and brake lever angle.
  • + 1
 196cm tall and super happy with my SC 5010 in XL. Around here the perfect rig with 130mm front and rear travel. Just love the 4x bike feel of it on rooty singletrails around here. Works s well pretty good on technical alpine trails. Jumpy nimble bike. Sure it gets a bit nerveous in faster sections but hey its fun and gives you skills. Climbing still works pretty well if i move slightly forward on the saddle in often pretty steep (20%) climbs.
First bike in 25 years of riding which feels actually the right size and rig. Even with 650b
#keepf*ckingpedaling
  • + 4
 Mike Kazimer’s geo is my perfect bike except

430mm chainstays
27.5” wheels
  • + 3
 6,3 Wheel size 27.5 Travel 160mm front 0mm rear Head angle 65 Chain stay 430mm with a low bb. Reach 450mm Stem 50mm Bar width 770mm Perfect
  • + 3
 6’3” and a 450mm reach? Wow. If I was 6’3 id want a reach of 490-500...
  • + 1
 @Richt2000: I'm 6' and 450mm feels like a BMX bike.
  • + 1
 @Richt2000: I’ve got 490mm reach my other bike I like it too. Just if I had to pick one it would be around 450mm. Just feel like they handle better on everything apart from flat out rough stuff.
  • + 1
 @thenotoriousmic:

Yea a lot depends on what your riding too. I like a shorter reach / wheebase for lines with lots of jumps, and longer reach for speed / gnar
  • + 2
 @Richt2000: yeah steep gnarly tracks I prefer a smaller bike for better handling for flat out fast track I’d prefer a longer bike for stability. Most of my ridings done on quickly built tracks in the woods though.
  • + 1
 Chainstay should be correlated to height. I'm 5'6" with short legs and long arms. My ideal geo is:

27.5 or 29" wheels
65* HTA
425mm reach
415mm chainstay
Travel depends on the trail. If I could just pick one, it'd be 160/150

Sarah pretty much nailed what I like (only I like SUPER short chainstays).
  • + 1
 This article implies that you can take individual numbers and then put them together into something great. It doesn't consider that handling and ride characteristics are a product of a complete set of considerations. For example, short chainstays don't give you a playful ride if your bottom bracket is sitting on the ground, but most wouldn't consider this and would assume that the shorter they are the better regardless of any other factors.
I like mint chocolate ice cream and also salmon, so if I stick those together then I should have something even better.....right?
I expect a little bit more from the bike savvy folks at PB, at least a bit of a disclaimer that acknowledges that bicycle geometry is more than the sum of it's parts.
  • + 4
 totally unrelated but ryno power doin' some damage control ads on the homepage.
  • + 1
 I'm looking for a new Enduro ATM, and I've found the Geo I'm most interested in is how low the seat can go. The Enduro I have the seat isn't low enough so I can't get a good crouch or take jump hits with the seat hitting my arse. any bike suggestions with low seat heights.
  • + 2
 depends on what size you´re after. Most manufacturers for some crazy reason tend to use even increments between S-L sizes for both reach and seat tube lenght, but from L-XL there is always huge difference mostly in saddle height. I mean we have 200mm droppers nowadays ffs, we don´t need 500mm seat tubes even for XXXL!
  • + 5
 Chainstay length: 432mm


Yeah, those 2mm over 430 are key!
  • + 1
 I seem to have deleted my first version of this, if it's a repeat, my apologies.

5'11" 33" Inseam, All Mountain/ Enduro style riding with some Park capability.

My ideal bike would be:

Wheel Size: R 27.5", F 29"
Travel: R 155mm, F 160mm (any more travel and the weight transfer sucks up the efficiency)
Head Tube Angle: 65' (running this now on my Foxy 29 and it's perfect)
STA(e): 76' (running this now on my Foxy and it MIGHT be a bit too steep for me actually, still deciding)
Chainstay Length: 435mm
Reach: 492mm (about 5mm longer than my L Foxy currently with the -1 headset would be perfect)
Fork Offset: 42mm (mo better than 44mm imo)
BB height: 247mm (if you can't pedal through chunk, what's the point. Yah I'm looking at you SB130.)

I'd prefer a progressive, yet very pedal friendly Linkage Ratio suited for a high quality coil shock. I would not buy a bike that 'can work with either air or coil' as that compromise is no good. Should offer 2 linkage lever arms, one linear for air and another progressive for coil)

That would result in a fantastic all around bicycle imo.

Fun thread and I like hearing everyone's ideas. I must say, lots of tall dudes around here! Makes some things tough for you guys.
  • + 1
 Wow! We'll look back in 5 years and roll our eyes! :-)

Strong pref for 29'ers there. Hope PB holds the results.....and is still in business....for 5 years and "reflects " on the results and then-contemporary geo.
  • + 3
 26" wheels, 625 effective tt, 425chainstay, 75° seat tube, 64° head angle, 150mm front & rear
  • + 0
 RCs are close to my preference at similar height (5,8”), I just want some slight adjustments because I can only afford one bike but want to ride in different terrain. Be aware this is gonna get geeky to the max.

Wheel size: 650A (because new standard is due...) but will make do with 650B for now.
Travel: 130 rear, 140 front with option to change to burlier 150 mm fork for AM duties.
Head angle: 65,5 to 67 with angleset and depending on fork travel.
Seat angle: 74,5 to 76 depending on flip chip, fork travel etc.
Chainstay length: variable 428/436.
Reach: 432 or 444, not sure which works best until tested with different stem lengths. Whichever is more agile and quick steering will win me over.
Extra: rider size specific linkage position/suspension tune. Like Cannondale.

These variations are all possible to design without too much added weight or complexity, except for the fork change, see Rocky M. or Liteville for example, and would make it possible to adapt the bike from somewhat hilly flatland were I will ride most, to more All Mountain for vacations.

Looking forward to see what magic Liteville have done on their new 301 Mk 15 to be released next month. However, the tt mounted linkage is looking dated now so please Liteville, join forces with Dave Weagle and make a premium aluminium “501 Mk 1” with an Orion-style linkage on.
  • + 0
 I really liked Kazimer's geometry chart but I think, if it were me, I'd put a little bit more travel in it. Probably bump it up by 10mm and I'd be pretty much happy. Doesn't surprise me that Kazimer's numbers are the most popular.
My numbers would probably look like...
Height: 5'5.5 / 166.6cm (Had my height measured with a laser if you're wondering...)
Reach: 440mm
Chainstays: 445mm
HA: 64*
SA: 78*
Travel: 140mm/160mm
  • + 1
 There is no perfect answer for me.
Ideal Geometry for my 5'8:
Wheel size: 27.5"
Travel: 140mm rear / 150mm front
Head angle: 65,5°
Seat tube angle (effective): 76
Chainstay length: 430mm
Reach: 440mm
Fork offset: 52mm
  • + 0
 my dream bike
Travel :180F -180R
Wheels 29F - 27.5R
headtube: 64 deg
chainstay: 430mm
seattube: 73 deg
reach: size small 425mm
*gear box driven
*low stand over / low top tube (easier for no foot cans)
* high pivot
BRING IT!!!!!!
  • + 2
 I'd say sick bicycles has just the ticket, but their STA is like 5 degrees steeper.
  • + 0
 @rockchomper And really nothing pops into my mind. I am sorry you're extinct.
  • + 1
 @AspidMan: I wouldn't say extinct.... id say more of a visionary! lol
  • + 0
 Sean McDermott
Director of Old Guys on Bikes
Height: 5'8"
Inseam: 29"
Wingspan: 29.5"

Wheel size: 29"
Travel: 150mm rear / 160mm front
Head angle: 66°
Seat tube angle (effective): 75.5°
Chainstay length: 435mm
Reach: 470mm
Fork offset: 44mm
BB drop: -21mm
BB Height: 350mm
Wheelbase: 1210mm
Handlebar width: 780mm
  • + 1
 Or a 5’9.5” wingspan...either way...
  • + 2
 @ChiliMcD: lol I just noticed that
  • + 1
 Wheel size: 27.5x2.3 front 26x2.6 rear
Travel: 120mm rear / 140mm front
Head angle: 66°
Seat tube angle (effective): 75°
Chainstay length: 415mm
Reach: 460mm
Fork offset: 41mm
  • + 3
 I couldn’t vote I really hate 29” wheels, and Sarah’s Bike isn’t big enough.
  • + 3
 now that I know that PB is run by a bunch of 29'rs...Sarah Moore but the majority is 29. Thats saying something
  • + 3
 Thank you Sarah for being the light in a world of darkness......
  • + 2
 Definitely due for an upgraded geo. My geo is quite old school, but still fun.
  • - 1
 Not enough numbers to define a bike, therefore none look good to me.

Wheel size 29x2.5 F, 27.5x2.5 R
Travel 150mm F/R
Rear center 440mm
Front center 820mm
HA ~62d
BB Drop ~40mm

Everything else juggled/tuned for rider fit
- STA 77-82
- Reach 440-540
- Stack 630-670
- ETT (whatever you're used to)
- STL (max seat slammage without clearance issues)
- Headtube length (tuned get the stack, reach, and ETT balanced)

Rather than a wide/flat aero position, I want a taller "A-frame" or diamond position that makes the seated position closer to the standing position, having the handling characteristics optimized for a more consolidated center of mass. Stack is increased to get the grips closer to level with the seat.
  • + 2
 BB drop means nothing if you have different size wheels front and rear!
  • + 1
 @threehats: True.

40mm BB drop results in a 315mm BB height if calculated by the rear axle (710mm tire diameter). Suitable for a AM HT, but better make that 20mm for a 150mm FS (335mm BBH). With the front axle, it'd be more like a 335mm BBH (750mm diameter).
  • + 1
 i am 6'4'', is there anyone here about my height who ride dirt jump park street and what is the ideal geometry for riders with my height
  • + 0
 Reach
New skool = height (mm) / 3.813
Old skool = height (mm) / 4.067

Not serious but someone somewhere has a spreadsheet with body measurements, riding discipline and magic plugin numbers, it’s the geek out way.
  • + 0
 TIL pinkbike needs more tall people! I'm 6'1" and hardly an anomaly amongst cyclists yet looking at those numbers makes Aston look like the a gangly freak who needs gobs more travel and comparatively weird numbers.
  • + 0
 Me: 6' @ 33.5"

Wheel size: 29''
Travel: 120mm rear / 130mm front
Head angle: 66.5°
Seat tube angle (effective): 75°
Chainstay length: 432mm
Reach: 460mm
Fork offset: 44mm

I think i need to buy a Giant Trance 29...
  • + 2
 Better sell those old school 51mm offset forks if you haven’t all ready...
  • + 2
 It’s funny how they all have jumped on the shorter offset fork bandwagon now.
  • + 1
 @mikelevy - I feel like these numbers are incomplete without the wheelbase number. Are we expected to do some trigonometry or something?
  • + 3
 Looks like Pinkbike would hire me. My inseam is 33" also.
  • + 2
 So it turns out bike designers have been speccing the wrong seat tube angle for decades now huh? Not surprised. Lol.
  • + 2
 No mention of preferred riding style/discipline? This would dictate a lot imo.
  • + 2
 So have you guys ridden bikes with the exact ideal geos you are indicating?
  • + 1
 Mike Levy's seat tube and head tube angle + travel seem spot on.

I would probably play around with reach and chainstay a bike because I am a tall freak.
  • + 1
 I don’t know what to pick. Nobody listed their preferred RAD/Spread!?!? Joking aside I’m probably between mike and mike.
  • + 2
 The string of "Gwin hasn't announced yet, we have to post something" articles is becoming quite impressive!
  • + 3
 Whatever my Canfield Balance is, that’s what I like.
  • + 3
 So is Paul just trollin' or wat
  • + 3
 proud I was in the minority, the Sapp club.
  • + 1
 Me too! I feel that's perfect enduro territory, although I would change rear travel to 150mm...
  • - 1
 Mike Kazimer is closest numbers to Pole's geo which has been a game changer for me. I love hearing so many people mention a Pole or Geometron then say, "I've never actually ridden one but I know they're too slack for me" hahahah!
It's like saying, "those computers are just a fad... I'll stick to my rolodex & land line"Smile
  • + 1
 They seem to forget that in our world, some people are tall and some are short! It's like trying to press some fixed dimensions on a tailor-made costume...
  • + 1
 Im a Clyde.
6' 1" with a 30" inseam
My 2016 Large Kona Explosif 27.5 works great!


So PB, do I get a job? =)
  • + 1
 "you get a Starling murmur!, you get a murmur!, you get a murmur!, you get a murmur!, you get a swoop!, you get a murmur!"
  • + 0
 Park is the closest, but get the chain stays down around 420mm and make the reach about 15mm longer per size and bam you have a updated Canfield Riot.
  • + 1
 This article is about as useful as knowing these people's clothing and shoe size.
  • + 2
 Pushing a lil hard on 44mm offset...
  • + 1
 I would've liked to have seen tire width here as well. 2.35" is quite different than 2.6", for example.
  • + 1
 As MBUK would once have put it, Mike Levy is an XC jayboy (it's ok, it's used in context). Still a top dude though.
  • + 2
 I don't know enough about the geometry, I prefer to have a strong opinion!
  • + 1
 Lol I read it that way the first time. I think that better applies to the PB commenters. @mikekazimer please note the change. Big Grin
  • + 2
 So we’re back to 26” numbers, ironic!
  • + 8
 When have there ever been 26 bikes in any size but xl with geometry anywhere near these numbers?
  • + 1
 @TheSlayer99: the Specialized Pitch in L had 480mm reach, 423mm chainstay, 76° seat angle and 67° HA, back in 2008. And it was rock solid : i'm still riding it 10 years later !
  • + 2
 Interesting that almost all prefer reduced offset forks.
  • + 1
 HT angle - 55 Deg Seat tube angle - 90 Deg Reach - 750mm Chainstay - 400 mm I'm 4ft 7in
  • + 1
 Why does everyone like such short travel bikes. Wheres the 250mm front and rear bike with a sub 60 degree head angle.
  • - 2
 My dimentions 5' 9.5" 190 lbs 32"inseam 5'9 wingapan
My ideal bike geo
29"x2.4 front 27.5x2.4 rear tire
~20mm bb drop
~13.4 bb height
1700-130 talas fork travel
37mm offset
160mm rear travel
438 reach
64 head angle
462 chainstay length
610 stack
100mm headtube
slammed low stem
177.5 cranks
800mm handlebar 7x3* bend
50mm stem
77* seattube angle
15" seattube length at least 13" deep

this is best loop/endo angle for not friggin tall guys also maintaining some agility with talas and limited but sufficiently roomy reach
  • + 2
 Pick a geometry and be a dick about it
  • + 1
 Reach: 535mm
Chainstay: 445mm
HA: 64°
SA: 79
170mm travel front
150mm travel rear
29er
  • + 2
 Wow, 29ers all round. Explains a lot.
  • + 1
 what the hell about the 29''? please try a new bike with 27.5 , you won't ride a 29.
  • + 1
 Did you just join this site yesterday? You probably cannot name a bike these guys have not ridden. They have more time on 26, 27.5, or 29" bikes than you. After experiencing all kinds of sick bikes for free as their full-time job, everyone except for the short female prefers 29". Are they all wrong?
  • + 3
 No stack heights?
  • - 2
 So, something like the Transition Double (Large) was listed as having a 16.41" (416.8mm) Reach. I don't understand why frames got so long in the front. DH and Freeride bikes didn't used to be super long either.

It seems like people with an XC/AM background think they need to lean out forward in order to climb. They used to do this with long stems. But, the industry decided that short-reach dirt jumper/freeride/downhill stems look cooler the steering handles better . . . YET they needed the bike to still have the lean-out-forward feel, so they lengthened the top tube by 2 -3 inches and shortened the stem by 2-3 inches.

www.vitalmtb.com/product/guide/Frames,7/Transition/Double,2794
  • + 2
 RC's riding picture is my favorite, so his numbers must be the best!
  • + 2
 ...and BB height come to think of it.
  • + 1
 I would take Sarah Moore's numbers but with 29" wheels. Brian Park's are a little too slack and short for me.
  • + 2
 PB why is EVERYBODY with 44mm fork offset??
  • + 2
 Because the industry told them it was better! After all, the industry pays their wages.
  • + 3
 Is travel part of geo?
  • + 0
 Uhhhhhh.... wut
  • + 1
 I´m disappointed by Paul Aston´s choice of 29in wheels, if not 27.5 I was hoping he would pick a hybrid at least...
  • + 2
 I like the hybrid setup, it is better when you don't know the trail and are making turns on sight - the 'self-steering' works better in these situations.

But, I think a 29/29 is better if you know the trail and can position yourself for what you know is coming up.
  • + 1
 @paulaston: interesting observation, thanks for answer!
  • + 1
 Do i want to read loads of jerrys prefered geo? No
Do i want to ride my bike fast and do cool shit? Yes
  • + 1
 Wouldn’t mind seeing their preferred bar width alongside those numbers. And maybe wheelbase?
  • + 1
 Interesting nearly everyone prefers more fork travel than rear wheel travel!
  • + 2
 I actually flip flopped on that quite a bit. On shorter bikes I like a bit more forgiveness on the upper body (I've got shitty shoulders), but on longer bikes I'd prefer my geometry to not steepen at full bottom.
  • + 2
 The 160/140 I'm riding now is my favorite feature on the bike. It feels so much more balanced for drops and jumps, and climbs are great.
  • + 1
 @brianpark:
Fully agree! For me it is not the shoulders but i like having a little better pedaling platform on trail bikes.
  • + 1
 @brianpark: Surley you need all the rear wheel travel you can get?
  • + 1
 FORK OFFSET 42.1515mm for stablitity but also sharp handleing
  • + 1
 How come noone gave a BB height value? That’s one of my main ones
  • + 1
 My mate Randy says only thing that matters is RAD measurment.
  • + 0
 6'1
Wheel Size: 27.5"
Travel: Front 170 Rear 160
Head Angle: 64.5
Reach: 470
Chainstay Length:430
  • + 1
 Which bike has an 82 degree STA?
  • + 1
 What about ideal rim width? WE MUST KNOW
  • + 1
 32mm front
29mm rear

For 29s obviously.

You need wider for 27.5" imo.
  • + 1
 Headtube is 69 and the chainstays are longer
  • + 1
 there should only be DH or E-bike geometry
  • + 1
 I am Editor, and i can't choose from any of theese numbers
  • + 1
 Could care less what this guys think. Only here for the comments.
  • + 1
 take your bike out and go for a ride !

#26isntdead
  • + 1
 damn you guys is .. nerds .. i know crap all about bikes - ha ....
  • + 1
 A 63.5° head tube angle? Does that even exist? And no 650b?
  • + 1
 650 ain't dead bro
  • + 1
 whats with all the long chainstays? make short chainstays great again!
  • + 0
 had to go Aston for that travel, but the seat/ head angles are a very nice bonus...
  • + 1
 82 degree seattube?? where does that exist outside cyclocross?
  • + 3
 TT bikes.
  • + 4
 There isn't a single CX bike in existence with an 82 degree STA. None. Zero. Zilch. 72? Many.
  • + 1
 @Trouterspace: TT bikes don’t even to that steep due to ego restrictions. Some tri bikes get close though.
  • + 1
 Paul Aston basically has a DH bike . I like it !.
  • + 1
 If DH bike has 82deg SA and 470 CS, then yes.
  • + 0
 Levy would likely smoke all of those other riders and their bikes on the downs on his XC bike.
  • + 1
 I live in smALL Mountain territory so the Levy numbers are my choice.
  • + 1
 Yeah but what's there RAD? ETT ftw!!!
  • + 2
 Mike Kazimer ~ SB130?
  • + 4
 im 95% sure that's the bike he copied the info from lolol
  • + 2
 Rear centre is too short. S3 Evo is probably closer.
  • + 2
 Knolly Fugitive LT
  • + 1
 We will let the people choose, we will call it democracy!
  • + 1
 shocking PB picks the long travel option.
  • + 1
 how about not enough money to try new geometry
  • + 1
 RC's is perfect minus those long ass chainstays!!
  • + 1
 Sounds like everyone submitted their current bike geo..
  • + 1
 I voted for the shortest chain stay (an the taller rider)
  • + 1
 What about us tall bros who are 6 feet 5ish?
  • + 1
 Add 20mm of reach to kazimers and maybe a few to chainstay
  • + 1
 Paul Aston’s geo, but with 26+ wheels, 37mm offset fork and 450 reach.
  • + 1
 and Kazimer won this battle against Levy Smile
  • + 1
 appears 77 seat tube is the new black
  • + 1
 As long as the reach or ef top tube is adjusted!
  • - 3
 Y’all should buy my Canfield Riot East Coast Custom and stfu!
Travel - 160mm DVO Topaz Factory/R 140 mm DVO Topaz factory.
HTA -65
SA- 77
CS- 420
Reach- 470.

+all Shimano XT M8000 Brakes and DT.

5700$ / obo
  • + 0
 Turner gnar sultan geo will rule
  • + 1
 32er aint dead!
  • + 0
 It’s tastes like purple.

Just.Ride.Yar.Bikes.
  • + 1
 Cunningham you sexy sob
  • + 1
 Prognarcountry
  • + 1
 Only one 27.5 ?!
  • + 1
 Ya with current geo u dont really notice drawbacks of bigger hoops...most aren't jumpers whilst most are trail riders.
  • + 1
 29 wins again.
  • + 1
 Love that it changes!
  • + 1
 So. Many. Comments.
  • + 1
 Thaaaaat's NumberWang
  • - 1
 My ht.
27+
66 ha
76 sa
430 cs
430 reach
50 bb drop

I'm 5'6
  • - 1
 470 chainstay!!!??? Go home paul aston.. you are drunk
  • + 0
 This article is cancer
  • - 2
 Reach: 450mm
Chainstays: 443mm
HA: 63.5°
SA: 77°
BB: 333mm
  • + 2
 SJ EVO
  • + 7
 1. gwin 2. hill 3. jolanda
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.341176
Mobile Version of Website