Video: Remi Gauvin Tests Medium & Large Size Frames Back to Back
Bikes are getting longer, lower, slacker but Remi has stayed the same. He probably has a few more good years ahead of him before he too becomes lower and slacker! Through the evolution of bike sizing Remi has always consistently been a 'large guy.' Although, here we are now, and he’s back riding a medium. Which is the same size that his shorter teammates, Jesse and ALN ride. So is Remi a large or a medium in the Rocky Mountain Altitude?
Watch to see Remi put together back to back runs on the medium and large Altitude. Although a short track, it was a good starting place to feel the differences, see what the clock says and what his thoughts are moving forward.
Through episodes like this we hope to share some insight into our thought process and why we do things!
Rider Stats: Age: 28 • Height: 5'10" • Weight: 182lb
Bike Stats: On the medium Altitude Remi runs a 1 degree angle headset with a Raceface Turbine 50mm stem. The angle set is to increase the wheelbase of the smaller bike while the 50mm stem is to offset the decrease in reach of the angle headset. On the large frame, Remi uses a 40mm Raceface Turbine stem to decrease the reach of the longer bike.
Bike Stats: On the medium Altitude Remi runs a 1 degree angle headset with a Raceface Turbine 50mm stem. The angle set is to increase the wheelbase of the smaller bike while the 50mm stem is to offset the decrease in reach of the angle headset. On the large frame, Remi uses a 40mm Raceface Turbine stem to decrease the reach of the longer bike.
Don't forget that for the first year of our channel, MGM Alternative will donate all the money generated from YouTube ad revenue to our local trail association SORCA. So by watching, liking and subscribing you’re in turn, helping out the trails that so many people enjoy!
Subscribe to MGM Alternative
Follow Jesse
Follow Remi
Follow Miranda
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
[UPDATED] Final Elite XC Results & Overall Standings from the Mairiporã XC World Cup 2024
41997 views
41997 views
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
Sam Hill has a good quote on his recent Inside Line podcast/Vital interview along these lines. Paraphrasing, "A medium man ain't gettin' any bigger, so why is a medium bike getting bigger?"
100% agree. As much as the marketing and trends work on me, I've come to realize that I don't go fast enough to notice the difference in stability between sizes/lengths, but I do notice that difference when cornering, climbing, featuring, etc. and 99% of the time I much prefer the more nimble, playful feel, to something that feels like a semi-truck just barreling down hill smashing through rocks and roots. To each their own, I've found ~1250mm wheelbase is about the top end for me at 5'11", my size "Large" Capra w/ 460mm reach is pretty spot on for me.
I still race an old XL V10.5 which is shorter than a medium NS Fuzz from 2016 and shorter than a medium V10.6, way shorter than a large Commencal.
Just tried both and at 6ft1 the V10.5 is the fastest bike (and it has little Diddy wheels), means I will be racing that little bike for 2021.
I have also tried a large Commencal Supreme DH and it was also slower than my V10.
My trail bike is a 2016 large mega and it often feels a bit long, especially when it's a little wet.
@ceecee: Reach across size large (what I normally look at) has conservatively grown by on average about 5-6cm in 10 years. So yes a new medium would have the same reach as an older size large, but the seat tube angles have steepened in turn so if you try to downsize the standing position might feel good but the seated position would likely be much too small.
Sam runs his front end about the same height as he always has.
I have had a wee theory for a long time....
The relative width of your bars is related to either the axle of your wheel or the bottom or your wheel (I think the axle), therefore the higher you run your front end (as is no needed for a 29er Dh bike for example) the wider your bars, but the relative angle from your contact point (the grips) to the axle or the ground remains similar.
Having tested 27.5 and 29" Dh bikes I find the higher front end needs a wider bar (also the stiffer feel of 40's over boxxers needs a wider bar, but offset comes into play too).
This means that the force acting on the steering moment or contact point when weighting the bar into certain corners remains the same (as you are just following that line up at an angle from the relevant axle or tyre contact point). Try an 800m bar on a DJ bike, it would just be crazy, but try a narrow DJ bar on a Dh bike... crazy again.
Following this theory to the rider preference for suspension setup will also play a part as this determines the weighted height of the front end on the bike when in the attach position. Firmer setup = wider bar, softer setup = narrower bar.
I analyse anything on my bike and base what is on my bike on times on a track.
I am an racer after all and want to do the best I can at the races (I have won 1 or 2 in my time), I am just not quite Sam Hill speed....even if he was riding his kids bike that is lol.
If you're arguing for shorter reach bikes with sufficiently slack htas and just long enough chainstays, yay.
I'm holding out for V10 v10, and will use wider bar regardless, for ease of engaging shoulder knobs. Not a racer, though
I think the V10.5 has the balance right for the leverage, wheel base, chain growth curve etc. for the tracks in Scotland anyway. It manages to be very stable, whilst changing direction quickly and pedalling pretty good, its very good and predictable under braking.
I have tested it with the CCDB coil which I used to run (just a little unreliable and has a tight setup region), the CCDB air (terrrible), the Vivid air (terrible) and the Vivid coil. the vivid coil gave the lowest SD when testing.
I tested air v coil in the UK and in the south of Spain.
I am sad enough to know how good a Cont Mud king is run backwards for mixed condition tracks where there is mud (my favourite damp to wet condition Dh tyre).
I need to escape the lab more and enjoy riding rather than trying to build the perfect track for me and analyse every click on my bike
And to be clear, you deserve the heck out of it. Nobody knows the years of life you've given to get to this point. So you know there is no hate, only respect. Keep rockin'!!!!
I hate to bring this up about the video, and I'm glad you folks brought this type of video out (we need more like this), but I'm scratching my head on adding the angle set on the medium to make it more like the large. I would have preferred, for a true test between the two bikes, to leave the geo unchanged on either bike. Making he medium longer to get closer to the large's wheelbase seems to defeat the purpose of the comparison, at least somewhat (I know the wheelbases are still different, just not as much as they could be if left alone). Plus, as pointed out by Remi, the medium (set up stock) puts that front wheel a little closer and therefore easier to weight in corners so by popping it back out with the angle set seems counter to the intended test (and diminishes the stated benefit of the medium's geo over the large for Remi). Anyway, my two cents, don't spend them all in one place. Again, thanks for the video, love it!
All these commenters are bragging about how they bravely ride a Medium, though they're 5'10" (which, surprise, is 60th percentile height for a man in the United States... so definitely "medium"). I'm 92nd percentile for height in the US, but sized down from an "extra large" to a "medium" trail bike because of Mr. McCormack's formula. ...but the FS trail bike's medium's reach is 460, which is stonking massive compared to a mid-00s XL frame.
S, M, XL: The names don't make much sense. But the people who are really losing out are the 10th percentile group. A ~430mm "small" is way too big. Even running upside down bars like some of Lee's coaching clients and you're *still* going to have a tough time muscling the bike around.
It's hard to describe how much more nimble, responsive, and fun the "medium" is compared to my XL hardtail. Things that I thought were impossible (bunny hops and wheelies, I'm looking at you) all of a sudden became a breeze.
On the other hand people who are 190cm or more can't do anything but ride XLs that are terribly disproportionate with very short head tubes and chainstays.
How is it possible to have let's say Medium bike with 100mm head tube and 450mm reach with 435mm chainstays made for someone who's 170cm tall and XL bike with 120mm head tube, 490-500 reach with same 435mm chainstays made for a 20cm taller person while keeping the chainstay the same, head tube only 2cm longer so most of the tall folk have to run a lot of spacers not to have gigantic saddle to bar drop that's uncomfortable further shortening the reach and pushing the weight back so climbing sucks even more due to ridiculously short chainstays and weight being shifted all the way back.
I suggest testing out what works for you rather than following anyone's advice. If you like to ride in the center of the bike go longer if you ride old school off the back go shorter.
You short shredders have it WAY better than you think.
And I’m only 6’2” 6’3”ish whatever I am
I’m always an XL
They always have to fit haha and ride like rubbage because the damn rear ends are so darn short and the bike is so out of balance.
People in M-L range have it SO good!
For what its worth I'm 5'6" and ride a new Meta with 470mm reach (though I did swap the stem from 40mm to 30mm).
The thing I love best is the bike handles best when it matters most - steep, fast, rough sections and definitely makes up for it being a little awkward in flatter sections I dont care for.
Just my feedback for those who are on the fence size wise.
Both I think came with 80mm stems and I bumped the Large down to 60mm to match the fit of the Medium. I had tried 60mm on the Medium but it makes it too cramped. I also have zero offset posts on both bikes and pedaling feels perfect.
Riding both back to back for a while now... I really enjoy both. The key differences is the Large is more stable and the Medium is more playful (wheelbase). I also like a little more frame in front and higher. I will never get rid of the Medium Scale though as I absolutely love it's more playfulness, it's great to get back on after riding the Large for a while.
As far as the Spark goes I think I would prefer a Large of that gen (2012) to get more bike in front and higher. What's really weird is I test rode my buddy's newer gen RC that was XL and thought it would work great for me...now I'm confused.
As far as drop bars go, I have the 56cm 1st gen Foil, 54cm Speedster road, and 54cm Speedster gravel. The 54s fit like a glove. The 56 fits pretty well but I absolutely had to get the zero offset post for it (54cm comes with zero offset) as the offset post on the 56 just didn't work for me.
If money/space were unlimited , I might just have a couple sizes of the same bike. If I had to choose I would err on the larger size so long as pedal position is good.
Unless your faster buddy that’s 6’3 has no problem navigating them.
People that are on small bikes always complaining about feeling like they are navigating an ocean liner when is tall guys are on bigger bikes with wider bars and seem to have no problems
It likely depends where/how you ride, but I'd argue once you're comfortable going legitimately fast, a long bike is a largely unnecessary crutch considering what you trade away in cornering and tech. At 181cm I've had the chance to try everything from ultra short '90s bikes to 1300mm wb and for anything short of DH I'll take today's 'medium' (less than 470 reach/1240 wb) all day.
What I was alluding to is that I'm categorically 'downsizing' according to the industry trend to push long/low/slack=stable. If for instance I pick up another Commy they're suggesting 495r/1285wb on my human dimensions, which to me is absolute madness.