captainscoobing

The thing that is missed here which is the most important part of the correct geometry for a bike is the rear centre length and more importantly the ratio of front centre to rear centre. -Hats off to Canyon for pushing geo and making the front centres a decent length. -However, by leaving the rear centre really short (435) and especially for all lengths, it means that only one of these FC lengths will actually maybe feel good, and you have to hope you're the right height for that one (I'd say probably the small). -Cornering grip, stability, comfort when descending is determined in part by where the riders' COG sits between the two axles. On both the L and XL here, it will be way too far back, causing lack of grip on the front wheel. The short CS will also make the rear wheel skip out easier than if it was an adequate length, giving an overall feeling of instability. It will climb worse with the slack SA and short rear end combo. Unfortunately manufacturers have been pushing short CS for years and the PB commenters have decided that a bike must have short CS to be playful. The harsh reality is that if you can't manual a bike with 450 CS, you can't manual any bike. You can learn to manual or bunny hop a bike with any CS length within reason. Instead what we have is a bunch of bikes coming out with long FC, short RC. The bike feels neither playful or fast, just sketchy and cumbersome to get around corners. I would bet that most riders who have their perfect 'reach' number (whether it's short or long) have stumbled across their best FC/RC ratio that they've ridden to date.