What Geometry Numbers Do the Top Enduro Racers Actually Prefer?
EWS racers are super serious and do not like to have fun.
Bike fit and geometry will always be a hot topic in mountain biking. For better or worse, the top racers are often being pointed to as the model for what is "correct". But how much do top racers really care about their setups? I reached out to the top 10 EWS overall men and women and asked them 10 questions to find out.
It's worth mentioning that most EWS racers decide on their setups during pre-season testing and stick to those settings for a consistent feeling bike in all conditions. A few athletes take a more "cerebral" approach (to quote Mike Levy's interview with Jesse Melamed) but really even the most "tinkering" racers are usually only trying products from the brands that pay their bills.
People often point to "crazy" EWS setups and think it must be because they are racing janky switchbacks all day. Having raced a few EWS races, at the other end of the results sheet, I think the "tight Euro switchbacks" thing is slightly overblown. EWS tracks are a large range of styles and conditions. In my experience the tracks are reasonable and fun to ride as long as the organizers don't get too crazy with ski piste or urban sections.
In reality, these top athletes have to navigate a large variety of terrain which exceeds the speeds and steepness that most people are comfortable riding all while breathing from their eyeballs. This means that they might value a more neutral bike setup that doesn't require them to think about weighting the front of the bike in each corner when their brain has no oxygen. An argument can also be made that as a rider's skill level progresses their need for super long, low, and slack geometry is lessened because they have more control of their body position on the bike.
In the end it's up to you to decide what fit and geometry you prefer. There's no harm in tinkering!
1. What is your height?
I’m 182cm tall
2. What is your wingspan?
An estimate after some testing - 185cm
3. What is your preferred reach number?
473mm, sometimes I catch myself thinking I want smaller.
4. What is your preferred head angle?
64.6
5. What is your preferred stem length?
50mm
6. Do you prefer a 35/36mm fork or 38mm fork?
I run a Fox 38 but I’ve never done back-to-back testing. I think I probably would struggle to tell the difference to the 36.
7. Do you prefer an air or coil shock?
I love the coil feel on the Firebird, I’m sure there are places air would be better but the confidence and comfort with the coil is ideal!
8. What is your ideal chainstay length?
Stab in the dark with 430 cause it just needs to be proportionate to the front end, so reach dependent.
9. What is your preferred brake rotor size?
200 all day. I’m not exactly a small guy and not once have I thought “Oh man, I need more power.”
10. Do you run tire inserts?
Panzer inserts rear always, will put in the front for super jank rocky places or for real gnar when you want help settling the front end.
1. What is your height?
176cm
2. What is your wingspan?
I don’t know.
3. What is your preferred reach number?
I am not allowed to say.
4. What is your preferred head angle?
64.5
5. What is your preferred stem length?
30mm
6. Do you prefer a 35/36mm fork or 38mm fork?
Fox 38
7. Do you prefer an air or coil shock?
Both but air with my last settings.
8. What is your ideal chainstay length?
432mm shorter it is, better it is.
9. What is your preferred brake rotor size?
Galfer Shark 203mm front / 223mm rear
10. Do you run tire inserts?
For sure with the Tubolight.
1. What is your height?
164cm
2. What is your wingspan?
167cm
3. What is your preferred reach number?
between 440 and 460
4. What is your preferred head angle?
~ 64.5
5. What is your preferred stem length?
35 or 40
6. Do you prefer a 35/36mm fork or 38mm fork?
38, because we‘re running 170mm travel and the 36 only is available up to 160mm travel. Otherwise I’d like to run 36 as it’s lighter than the 38. But sometimes you can’t get everything, so I went for more travel.
7. Do you prefer an air or coil shock?
Air as it’s more progressive. But for really long stages, when the shock gets really hot, I sometimes wish for a coil.
8. What is your ideal chainstay length?
All the enduro bikes I’ve recently ridden had a 435mm chainstay and I never had a back-to-back comparison. But in general I always felt comfy with that.
9. What is your preferred brake rotor size?
200mm
10. Do you run tire inserts?
Always one in the rear. Depending on the race/tracks XC CushCore in the front as well. With heavier wheels I also felt more stability which I liked a lot on rougher tracks like Finale Ligure.
But in general I don’t look too much at numbers (most of the time) but have to feel good and balanced on the bike. I feel like I lose focus on riding well if all I think about is what if my headtube angle was 0.2-degrees slacker and stuff like that.
1. What is your height?
168cm
2. What is your wingspan?
Don’t know
3. What is your preferred reach number?
Trying to find it
4. What is your preferred head angle?
~64degrees as of right now
5. What is your preferred stem length?
40mm most likely
6. Do you prefer a 35/36mm fork or 38mm fork?
38mm
7. Do you prefer an air or coil shock?
Depends on the bike and the terrain. I like and use both because I have good options and set ups for both.
8. What is your ideal chainstay length?
435-440mm now that suspension has gotten so good.
9. What is your preferred brake rotor size?
203 has been good for the XTR’s.
10. Do you run tire inserts?
Usually. Track and situation dependent.
1. What is your height?
170cm
2. What is your wingspan?
172cm
3. What is your preferred reach number?
450mm
4. What is your preferred head angle?
64.5-65 degrees (65 degrees on most terrain as I like it feeling more snappy on corners but will slacken the bike out with the flip chip in my frame for more DH and steeper tracks)
5. What is your preferred stem length?
42mm
6. Do you prefer a 35/36mm fork or 38mm fork?
36mm fork as I found the 38mm overkill.
7. Do you prefer an air or coil shock?
Currently air shock but I switch between the two depending on the race- prefer coil for long rough descents and at altitude, prefer air for everything else.
8. What is your ideal chainstay length?
440mm for stability, it keeps me more centered in the bike.
9. What is your preferred brake rotor size?
203mm
10. Do you run tire inserts?
No inserts.
I just learned today my wingspan is more than my height.
1. What is your height?
182cm
2. What is your wingspan?
183cm
3. What is your preferred reach number?
464mm reach (I race an S3 Enduro).
4. What is your preferred head angle?
64.3
5. What is your preferred stem length?
50mm stem
6. Do you prefer a 35/36mm fork or 38mm fork?
38mm Zeb
7. Do you prefer an air or coil shock?
Air shock
8. What is your ideal chainstay length?
434mm chainstay
9. What is your preferred brake rotor size?
220 mm rotors front and rear
10. Do you run tire inserts?
Cushcore rear only
1. What is your height?
183cm
2. What is your wingspan?
180 cm, a big eagle!
3. What is your preferred reach number?
470 / 475mm
4. What is your preferred head angle?
64 to 64.5-degrees is perfect. Depending the terrain
5. What is your preferred stem length?
45 to 50mm. I’ve been riding 50mm stem for my entire career so far. I like the weight over the front wheel. It’s my riding style. However I tried a 45mm couple weeks ago and it was as good.
6. Do you prefer a 35/36mm fork or 38mm fork?
36mm. I’m a light rider and quite precise. The 36 is stiff enough for me I think.
7. Do you prefer an air or coil shock?
Air shock. More tuning is possible with air.
8. What is your ideal chainstay length?
I’m not too particular about chainstay length.
9. What is your preferred brake rotor size?
I’m using 180mm front and back. I have plenty of power and durability even though I’m using smaller discs than my competitors. We reduce weight and exposure that way.
10. Do you run tire inserts?
Rarely. This one is a tough choice every time. It all depends on the tires/rim combo!
1. What is your height?
181cm
2. What is your wingspan?
181cm
3. What is your preferred reach number?
470cm
4. What is your preferred head angle?
64.5
5. What is your preferred stem length?
50mm
6. Do you prefer a 35/36mm fork or 38mm fork?
38
7. Do you prefer an air or coil shock?
Coil
8. What is your ideal chainstay length?
435 roughly
9. What is your preferred brake rotor size?
200mm FR and R
10. Do you run tire inserts?
Always in the rear for racing, sometimes in the front if rocky.
1. What is your height?
157cm
5. What is your preferred stem length?
35 I think (not sure about it ).
6. Do you prefer a 35/36mm fork or 38mm fork?
36
7. Do you prefer an air or coil shock?
Air
9. What is your preferred brake rotor size?
200
10. Do you run tire inserts?
No
1. What is your height?
185cm
2. What is your wingspan?
183cm
3. What is your preferred reach number?
470mm
4. What is your preferred head angle?
64 degrees
5. What is your preferred stem length?
35mm
6. Do you prefer a 35/36mm fork or 38mm fork?
36mm
7. Do you prefer an air or coil shock?
Coil
8. What is your ideal chainstay length?
435mm
9. What is your preferred brake rotor size?
220mm
10. Do you run tire inserts?
Sure, CushCore
1. What is your height?
180cm
2. What is your wingspan?
Not too sure
3. What is your preferred reach number?
Been on a 460mm bike for a while.
4. What is your preferred head angle?
~64
5. What is your preferred stem length?
40-50mm
6. Do you prefer a 35/36mm fork or 38mm fork?
38mm
7. Do you prefer an air or coil shock?
Air
8. What is your ideal chainstay length?
Medium
9. What is your preferred brake rotor size?
203 Shimano Freeza
10. Do you run tire inserts?
CushCore
Haven't ridden too many bikes to have a great idea. Pretty much copy and paste my Yeti numbers, haha.
1. What is your height?
163 cm
2. What is your wingspan?
Not sure
3. What is your preferred reach number?
440 to 445 is my preferred reach. I don’t mind the top tube length too much but if the reach is around these numbers I know I’ll feel comfortable straight away on a bike.
4. What is your preferred head angle?
64 / 64.5
5. What is your preferred stem length?
40 mm. I used to ride an even shorter stem (33mm) but I feel like 40 is the perfect balance: it makes the bike easy to ride while still being stable enough.
6. Do you prefer a 35/36mm fork or 38mm fork?
38mm for racing and 36 on my shorter travel bikes. I enjoy the strong feeling of the 38 when the tracks get rough.
7. Do you prefer an air or coil shock?
I’ve been trying both last year but so far I prefer the feeling of the air shock and I feel like it works better for me on flat pedals.
8. What is your ideal chainstay length?
430mm.
9. What is your preferred brake rotor size?
200mm front and rear
10. Do you run tire inserts?
One Panzer in the rear.
1. What is your height?
159cm
2. What is your wingspan?
Not sure
3. What is your preferred reach number?
430
4. What is your preferred head angle?
65
5. What is your preferred stem length?
30mm
6. Do you prefer a 35/36mm fork or 38mm fork?
I never tried 38... so 36!
7. Do you prefer an air or coil shock?
Coil I feel more grip
8. What is your ideal chainstay length?
Not sure
9. What is your preferred brake rotor size?
200mm for my brake rotor
10. Do you run tire inserts?
Sometimes, depending the tracks.
1. What is your height?
165cm
2. What is your wingspan?
171cm
3. What is your preferred reach number?
450mm
4. What is your preferred head angle?
64 degrees
5. What is your preferred stem length?
35mm. I'm right in between a small and medium frame. I prefer the medium with a short stem.
6. Do you prefer a 35/36mm fork or 38mm fork?
38mm.
7. Do you prefer an air or coil shock?
Coil
8. What is your ideal chainstay length?
430mm
9. What is your preferred brake rotor size?
Usually 200, sometimes 220 for racing when there’s steep long stages.
10. Do you run tire inserts?
No, if I can avoid it. I don’t love the feeling of them so only use them if there’s high risk of puncturing.
1. What is your height?
170cm
2. What is your wingspan?
167.5cm
3. What is your preferred reach number?
450
4. What is your preferred head angle?
64
5. What is your preferred stem length?
40mm
6. Do you prefer a 35/36mm fork or 38mm fork?
36
7. Do you prefer an air or coil shock?
Coil
8. What is your ideal chainstay length?
441mm
9. What is your preferred brake rotor size?
203mm
10. Do you run tire inserts?
XC CushCore in rear wheel.
1. What is your height?
I'm just over 6ft, about 186cm
2. What is your wingspan?
No idea and I don't have a tape measure on me, sorry.
3. What is your preferred reach number?
My current reach is around 470mm,
4. What is your preferred head angle?
64-degrees
5. What is your preferred stem length?
40mm
6. Do you prefer a 35/36mm fork or 38mm fork?
Rockshox ZEB, so 38mm fork,
7. Do you prefer an air or coil shock?
Air shock!
8. What is your ideal chainstay length?
My current chainstay is 435mm.
9. What is your preferred brake rotor size?
220mm
10. Do you run tire inserts?
I have not run inserts for the last couple years of enduro racing.
Are these preferences inline with your ideal setup? Or are these racers way off? Should I crunch the numbers and make fancy graphs? Let us know down below.
Must Read This Week
505 Comments
It is funny how most new enduro rigs are slacker than anything these pros say they want though. Hell, a Transition Spire is slacker than the new Commencal Supreme DH.
If a rider has exceptional strength, agility, and ability to process the terrain ahead, they can still hold it wide open on a bike with compact geometry and/or less travel, with greater ability to adjust lines, hop-and-pop, and get around tight turns.
For us overwight, undertrained, middle-aged weekend warriors, the extra length and stability often add more through confidence and stability than what's lost through reduced agility.
People learn the upper limits of a system very slowly. We push the limits a tiny bit at a time, since the consequences of exceeding the limits can be severe, and our brains are wired for self-preservation, so mishaps are over-represented in our minds, relative to lost opportunities via being overly safe. In terms of evolution and survival, keeping things at, say, 80% meant you would almost never get injured or eaten by a gigantic, prehistoric bear, while 95% offered only a slight advantage and you would definitely get it wrong at some point, probably with dire consequences.
Let's consider optimization of tires. A top rider eventually, very slowly, learns the precise upper limit of their main tire. If they mount a soft-conditions tire for a slightly damp track, it may have a tiny bit higher limit on most of the track, and a considerably lower limit on rock and hardpack sections. If the tall lugs fold over and cause a crash on a nicely packed berm, the rider's brain fixates on risk avoidance and the lower limit of the soft conditions tire. Swapping between several tires is likely to result in the rider's brain adapting to the weaknesses of each tire, rather than the strengths. This is why we often see DH racers switching to mud spikes only when the entire course resembles melted ice cream.
Jesse Melamed has an engineering background and and engineer's brain, so he searches for optimizations more than most riders. Frequent changes in equipment and technique are less detrimental for average riders, since most of us aren't as consistently close to the limits, but for pro riders, there's greater value in utterly mastering an imperfect set-up than being uncertain of the precise limits of multiple set-ups. Finding the optimum balance of these approaches can be a difficult challenges for tech-minded riders like Jesse. That said, we have seen great success from chronic tinkerers like Jesse, Nicolas Vouilloz, Fabien Barel, Philippe Perakis, Loris Vergier, Greg Minnaar, etc., and riders who do little more than hop on a stock bike.
So comparing the riders favorite reach numbers, without looking at stack, is a bit misleading. Jack Moir famously likes quite a lot of stack, even if his reach number is relatively small.
This might just be "taller-ish" person preference though. I'm almost exactly Jacks size (not skill!), and stack is almost more important to me than reach.
A comparison of reach values of various bikes is meaningful only if the stack is kept consistent - if possible, make it as close as possible to the ideal stack for the rider in question, but that's not absolutely necessary. Calculate the reach values at the chosen stack. It adds complexity to the comparison, but it's better to be complex and correct than simple and wrong.
Every one of those enduro riders ride MUCH faster than us, none have stability issues, even ones on short bikes......if we ride slower, why wouldn't a shorter bike be stable "enough"?
There are a million factors in stability, rider interface, wheelbase, CS length, HTA, weight distribution, sus setup etc.....I've had long bikes that were less stable than shorter ones at speed.
I think it was Banshee that used to do something sim. with published Effective STA @ height
RAD includes all cockpit setup changes (stem length/angle, stem spacers, handlebar sweep/rise).
I am a fan of the metric called "Span", which I've seen on a few geo charts. But its just the hypotenuse between reach and stack. So basically its "RAD"... but without the cockpit fit bits.
Span is actually now the main thing I look at when I compare frames for bikes I'm interested in now (if its not listed, I just calculate it really quickly) for fitment, as its super fast. And sometimes quite interesting.
For instance, an XL Norco Sight, and a L Raaw Madonna, are the same exact span (814mm), even though the Raaw has a reach number that is 35mm shorter, its stack is also 27mm taller. So the size is similar, but the angle is way different (the Norco would be more stretched and low, the Raaw would be more upright).
It is not RAD, it's just a more accurate way to measure reach. The RAD method sounds sensible, but it's nonsense. Well-intended nonsense, but nonsense. For example, RAD doesn't account for seat-tube angle, so if you optimize a bike for winch-and-plummet riding with a super steep seat-tube angle, RAD produces an extremely short butt-to-bar distance. Similarly, optimize a hardtail for milder terrain and you'll want a more traditional seat-tube angle, but RAD does not account for this. RAD doesn't even separate reach from stack, so it equally recommends a long bike with time-trial bar height as a vertical bike with zero reach.
The evolution of RAD, RAAD, incorporates an angle to try to address some of these flaws, but it's still a workaround full of recommended constants necessary to produce acceptable results.
A proper predictive method incorporates many physiological measurements and allows variability for rider preference and terrain. As with my normalized reach, such a method adds complexity, but it's better to be complex and correct than simple and wrong.
The other approach is via data-driven observation: gather a lot of data on riders and how they like their bikes to fit, then plot the relationships to each variable. It can be even simpler by looking at manufacturers' geometry charts and plotting correlations between recommended rider heights and recommended frame geometries. It's a simplistic method that doesn't attempt to explain the underlying reasons for various dimensions, but, given enough data and enough time, the numbers will stumble in the right direction until nearly optimized. After more than a century of bike design - and nearly forty years of mountain-specific design - I believe we've reached a point where the data-driven approach is close enough for most riders.
I know this is unrealistic but I like to look at the extremes when I'm comparing things to get a sense of what is happening. Imagine a "bike" with 814mm of reach, and 0mm of stack (aero-AF reverse-recumbent), and now the opposite (penny-farthing). They have the same span but are totally different.
Even in the context of pure DH, it largely works because people have used other, better methods to optimize the length of stems, steering geometry, and ratio of reach to rise. If every possible dimension of bike was available, RAD would equally favour a super short reach and super long stack, or vice versa. It's a coincidental relationship, much like KOPS, that's been mistaken for causative.
@Planet-26: Yeah, you get it. As I mentioned in the prior paragraph, it's a coincidental relationship. If we first assume a rider is comparing bikes with similar ratios of reach to stack, similar stem lengths, similar steering geometry, similar bar geometry, similar seat-tube angles, similar travel, etc., then yes, comparing spans is a great way to compare how these, extremely similar, bikes will fit. If any of the parameters are significantly different, all bets are off.
1. Over a certain reach number your mobility on the bike suffers. You can't move back on the steeps, it's harder to make sudden weight shifts. Your position on the bike is almost constant no matter what you are riding which means you get less control. I realized I was riding really weird on steep tracks I'd not have issue riding on my old short ass dh bike.
2. Traction. On less steep tracks the longer the TT the less weight you have on the front wheel. Sure you can compensate with longer CS but only so much. If you put 60mm into reach vs 2012 geo you can't put 60mm into chainstays too.
Your observations about those four riders are true. I believe it's because, compared to current equipment, bikes were crap in Nico's day and moderately crap for Fabien and Greg, with Greg having the added challenge of his outlier height. Jesse isn't particularly tall and his pro career has been in the era of better equipment, so he hasn't had to go to extremes.
No worries, I'm not feeling "confronted"
I use it for fitment reasons, like I hear lots of people do with reach.
Like a lot of people, I'm often between sizes. And I use it to know which size I should be considering for any given bike. I find it super useful when comparing brands, which might have different ideas about sizing in their sizing charts. YMMV of course though.
A more concrete example.
So as someone who was "usually a size large" rider, it was really eye opening to me to see that my previous Kona Process 153 29'er, was 32mm smaller in overall size than a size L Raaw.
I had been considering a move to an XL Process, so naturally I was looking at the XL Raaw for a while (which has 10mm less reach). But once I looked at Span, I realized that was probably way too large for me (at 57mm larger than my L Process). So its these sorts of comparisons that I find useful, personally.
When I raced BCBR in 19' I wished I had a shorter compact setup vs my long and low XC setup.
I use 'RAD' colloquially, but RAAD is part of that which does take into account angle, if you believe in the numbers he comes up with or not (they do end up shorter than current trend but work for me).....the fact is, he is promoting a repeatable bike fitting metric that is consistent, maybe you can add 15% to his numbers, but it's repeatable.
What good is reach, normalized or not, without bar sweep and stem length incorporated? They are both variables that need to be accounted for.
Exactly. A particularly amusing example occurred in 2016: the XL Pivot Mach 6 had a shorter normalized reach than the Small Mondraker Foxy. Two bikes in the same category and there was no overlap between their entire ranges of sizes.
As you said, your BCBR experience makes sense and was predictable. When I design bikes, I use dynamic geometry (the a single, or time-weighted distribution, of rider and chassis positions) and dynamic centre of mass location. This method would not only show the need for your change in geometry, it shows why the change is needed.
Yep, totally agree
During peak covid, when I had new bike lust, and the inability to even see, let alone sit on or ride any of the bikes I was interested in, I created a giant spreadsheet to math out as many things as I could (since I couldn't test ride/demo).
And while span was the one I found the easiest to use for answering the simple "which size" question for me personally, it specifically doesn't mention HOW it fits, as you mentioned. So, I totally have the RAAD angle in that sheet as well, for exactly that purpose.
The cliffnotes version is that for long travel bikes, I have found that as long as I'm on a frame that has 795-820mm or so of span, I can make up for the rest with cockpit adjustments. And using the span number, I can quickly tell in some bikes thats a large, others its an XL.
Not trying to say everyone should do it. But its been useful for me. I bought my new bike 100% site unseen (Large Banshee Titan), and used the same span thing even when I'm renting bikes while traveling (XL Bronson, and S5 Stumpjumper), and so far I've been really happy.
Common strategic changes are, approximately in descending order of frequency: spring and damper settings, tire inserts, tire casings, tire treads, spring type, travel. A couple riders have reduced bar width for an exceptionally tight course and I've heard a couple have changed their head-tube angles for an extremely steep course, though most manage steep or flat course profiles via suspension settings.
1200mm wheelbases are to long to rail really tight switchbacks. 66° headtubes just aren't playful enough. Longer reach numbers are just way to far out there for comfort - and I'm a serious knuckle-dragger. And frankly, 140/160 just isn't necessary (or desired, given my skills & where I like to ride).
Still have that LLS. Def has it's place. Works better for bigger days, higher speeds, and bigger obstacles.
But my '15 non-boost 140/150 67°/73°(had to go to Pinkbike to find a Higher/Shorter /Steeper enduro/trail bike), gets 90% of the attention. Just because it's a more competent trail bike, and it's more playful & fun.
It'll do everything LLS will do. And given the day - just as fast (at least, not far off the mark). It's a better climber. Doesn't require that I stop&hop or skid my back wheel through a switchback. It's LLS's equal as a pedaller, but has the comfort edge for really long days in the saddle. It's just more versatile.
I've ridden one of the current LLS hardtails. My bud-s ESD. Stupidly slack. Wierdly steep at the ST. Geo that's become the norm! Comfy bike. Fun, toodling around. But..., see above.
Aspects of it, I really like. And am toying with the idea that my '16 alloy hardtail's frame needs to be replaced. But am backing away from from that class of geo, to something HSSer. I rode his Honzo before it got munched under a pile of rocks. Much more capable in my opinion.
What I wonder is whether I'm an outlier in this. If maybe the manufacturers are beginning to realize that maybe their geo mumbers have gone a little to far. Is this what we're seeing at the races? Are the pros starting to stress that if their bike sponsors want races won, they need to back the hell up?
I get glimmers, here & there. Be i terstung to see what happens over the next few years.
If our definition of 'proper' rider position is back angled at XX degrees, knees bent YY degrees, arms bent ZZ degrees....RAAD will get us in the right body position. That body position spatially / relative to the rest of the bike is different.
Now maybe you disagree with their being a 'proper' riding position, I think there is room to argue that, but RAAD conceptually at least gets us consistently there.
RAD has similar problems, such as permitting the rider to be upside-down, as long as the distance matches. RAAD attempts to fix this by constraining the angle within a small range, and it still assumes a certain type of bike for a certain type of terrain. That's a bit like saying KOPS actually works, as long as the seat-tube angle is 73°, the drop is 10 cm, the cranks are 175 mm, etc. Neither system can accommodate a diverse range of bike styles, terrain, etc. because neither is based on the physics that drive bike design or ergonomics.
KOPS, RAD/RAAD, and other coincidental relationships can be made to work, but they're built upon an incorrect premise. They require corrections - some based on real relationships, some based on additional coincidences - to more closely approximate an ideal, physics-based relationship.
Let's examine RAAD in detail. First, assume the rider's hips are correctly placed in relation to their feet - which RAD/RAAD does not restrict, so RAD/RAAD has already failed, but let's overlook that, for now. For each rider, there must be some acceptable range for both the RAD and its angle. The resulting area of acceptable placement for the grips is an annular sector with the BB at the origin of the rays. As an alternative to RAD/RAAD, we can think about the rider's physiology. Limb lengths are constant, and there will be a range of acceptable angles at the hip, shoulder, and elbow (these are the joints that primarily define the resulting hand placement area). The acceptable area for hand placement created by the acceptable range of joint angles has nothing to do with the annular sector described by RAAD. Note this failure of RAD/RAAD is just for ergonomics; we haven't begun to consider weight distribution and handling of the bike.
But ... perhaps we're looking at this from different perspectives. I design bikes, so I need to know the actual relationships that make bikes fit and function properly. If I'm interpreting you correctly, you're seeking a convenient estimation of whether a bike fits. With these purposes in mind, you can see why I despite RAD/RAAD and how it misleads people who I hope will understand my designs, and I can see how you like the convenience. If RAD/RAAD meets your needs, it's none of my business whether you use it, but it is my business to debunk bike pseudoscience and to increase the understanding of bike physics.
My takeaway is that relatively independent of height many riders seem to prefer chainstays in the 430s - which happens to match my own preference.
Basically sounds like a 2016 YT Capra spec
Looks like slacker geo is set more to work on flowy, wide, open, fast and non technical trails that are getting popular with regular folks. But if you prefer dealing with the proper alpine gnar, and possess some skill, then a bit more conservative numbers just work better.
@hankj: Some hardtails have the most experimental geometry on the market! I'm not going to comment on whether I like it, but I will say I'm glad we have such a range of options.
It's impossible to know how far to take things until you've gone too far. For decades, it was obvious bike geometry wasn't ideal, yet brands weren't testing the limits, so they just tentatively crept in the right direction. Finally, it's possible some modern bikes have gone too far - or maybe we just haven't caught up! Maybe the middle of the bell curve is now in the right place, or maybe things can still go a little further. At least we're in the ballpark and there are bikes available with a range of fit and handling parameters. No one is forcing people to buy a bike with an exceptionally long reach, steep seat-tube angle, slack head-tube angle, long chainstays, etc.; if that doesn't suit someone, there are plenty of bikes with more traditional geometry and/or 27.5" wheels. Agility, stability, upright, stretched - choice is a good thing!
There's a reason things disappear. 26" bikes with 350 mm reach also disappeared; if they existed, almost no one would buy them. Personally, I feel the reasons are the same: the currently popular bikes work better. Sometimes people with outlier preferences are ahead of the curve, and sometimes they just have niche tastes. In this case, I think it's a matter of niche tastes - which is fine, and it's wonderful for people to enjoy a diverse range of experiences within our sport - but niche tastes will always be presented with fewer options.
Maybe the middle of the bell curve will swing back toward greater agility, as happened in the beginning of the 1990s. Until then, at least the bikes you like are often the ones on sale!
I'd wager a bet that many pro's, at least the men, are much closer to RA(A)D than they are to any manuf claims of what they should be riding.
Not sure why you are so opposed to RA(A)D, it's a solid starting point, breaks down some unfortunate common trends of longer longer longer and makes people think about bike fit in new ways.
We are having a conversation about geo because of Lee's concept...
I'm pretty set on getting a Spesh enduro to race some multiday enduros and bike park days. Spesh says I should be on S4, but I'm starting to think S3 may be better for maneuverability and not being too stretched out. I also probably need to do a better job weighting the front and could put a longer stem on S3. Thoughts? PM me if it's easier.
"outside of RA(A)D - what else do we have?"
Many online calculators, fit services from shops, and manufacturers' recommendations. The appeal of RAD/RAAD is that it's simple. It's easy to be simple when physics is ignored.
I believe we continue to say different things: I'm saying it's based on flawed thinking, but I'm making no statement on whether it can put you, specifically, into a position you like. I believe you're saying it's convenient and maybe it helps you. If you want to use it and if it gets you close to a position you like, then fine, use it; that doesn't change that it's based on incorrect thinking and, if it works at all, it's only a coincidence due to mountain bike designs existing within a narrow range, which came about due to correct thinking and/or trial-and-error.
"without something driving people to try something new many are at the mercy of manuf. claims of what they should be riding or god forbid the PB comments sections where people have confirmation bias."
I'm not sure that's true, but even if it is, RAD/RAAD has nothing to do with that. Many manufacturers, fit services from shops, and online calculators make different recommendations. If RAD/RAAD makes yet another recommendation, why should we treat it any differently from any of the other myriad recommendations? The menagerie of opinions are each just the idea of one person; at least some of the other recommendations are likely to be based on more sound reasoning than RAD/RAAD.
"I'd wager a bet that many pro's, at least the men, are much closer to RA(A)D than they are to any manuf claims of what they should be riding."
What is it that makes you believe RAD/RAAD is more valid than the recommendations of other industry professionals? Bike companies don't just pull numbers out of a hat; their recommendations come from some logical process and/or trial-and-error. Some are better than others and some are based on better logic than others, but I see no reason to trust them less than a method that can be proven to be based on incorrect reasoning and coincidence. Again, that's not to say RAD/RAAD produces worse results for you, but if RAD/RAAD succeeds, it's only by coincidence and the prior work of others to narrowly constrain the range of options.
"Not sure why you are so opposed to RA(A)D"
Because it's based on incorrect reasoning and coincidence. Same reason I'm opposed to KOPS. If these sorts of techniques happen to work for you, that's great, but it's important to realize they are unlikely to work for a wide range of bodies and riding styles because the coincidental relationships do not hold true outside of the narrow range of bikes upon which they are based.
To give another example, I was once told that a road bike fits properly when the handlebar blocks the rider's sight of the front hub. If the rider is a male of average height and average flexibility, and all bikes under consideration have the usual angles and dimensions, then yes, that will usually produce a good fit, so maybe it's a convenient guide for many people and will help them choose the right bike. It can be useful - but it's also infuriatingly wrong. A size XXXXS with the longest stem ever created would also satisfy the criterion, as would an upright "Dutch" commuter bike with a handlebar at the tip of your nose.
It's possible for a guideline to be both useful and utterly wrong, but for it to be useful, it can be applied only within a narrow range of variables, which were established via correct reasoning and/or trial-and-error.
So here we are in 2022 impressed watching remy shred stuff on a 29’er that berrecloth and everyone else already shredded and tricked on 26’er back in 2006. Not knocking remy at all, but the most impressive aspect is that he does it on a 29er and not 27.5.
So just like you, everybody has their methods and creative licensing to develop what works and what doesn't.
I also work in a tech industry where people over-analyze every decision....huge data models to try and get things right only to find out simple calcs and rules of thumb generally work, a quantitative model in a qualitative world.
And no, I don't agree that bike companies with vested interest to sell bikes and whom sell what people *think* they want, is a reliable source for fit data.
But again, stepping back to 30,000 feet, I think of RA(A)D and Lee's concepts are three different things:
RAD hypothesis - bikes are too long....100% agree with the concept, as we can see, pro riders are starting to trend this direction.
RAD measurement process - here is a way to consistently measure and get a sense how we should fit bikes moving forward....100% agree, it's repeatable and consistent
RAD calculation / numbers - here is what the number should be based on your body dimensions.....I don't necessarily agree, it could be +13.67% or -2.77%.
Bikes are different and super light but wheelbase and stability are likely a bit more independent of the riders height than we might think. This likely is what riders are clinging more towards the middle of the sizing spectrum rather than the extremes...for people that are super riders and not subjected to effective marketing and post-purchase-justification.
To your point, MX bike reach can be adjusted ~25mm, seat height +/- 20mm, bar height ~20mm, footpegs +/- 5mm.....fits Ricky Charmichael (5-5) to Pastrana (6-2) to Bloss (6-5).....Pastrana and Bloss actually run LOWER bars than many of the shorter riders...go figure.
Jack Moir is the best example to your theory. He's the tallest of the racers here at 186cm and rides a race bike with 475mm reach because if he'd go bigger, that would make the bike unwieldy on tight switchbacks in the french alps. His personal trail bike that he rides at home has 510mm of reach though.
I can't stress enough how much you really, really can not infer any "universal truths" about bike sizing and geometry (especially reach) from the setups of pro EWS racers.
Pro riders who have been riding at a very high level for 10+ years are likely to have adapted to bike geometry from earlier in their development, and most likely will stick with something in their comfort zone. That might not be the bleeding edge of what's new.
Get some popcorn, sit back, and watch over the next 10 years to see where it takes us.
The good news is that bikes are still getting better. Just look back 5, 10, 15 years and see what a huge difference there is.
just like what you like and stop desperately trying to prove to everyone else that it's "better."
I'm just trying to simplify the reach to include the stem, but like I said above handlebar backsweep and handlebar width does have an effect on the reach feel. If you have a very high angle backsweep bar, the reach will feel shorter. Also, if you have wider bars, it brings your body more forward, so the reach can feel longer. It opens up more debate. Lol.
Similar with the chainstay. As Matt Walker already mentioned, the chainstay needs to be proportional to the other dimensions but I wouldn't just say proportional to the reach, but actually to the wheelbase (so include reach, fork length and head tube angle if you're taking that detour). I'd even go as far as to say it also matters where you put your feet on the pedals. But I suppose these riders are riding clipped in (they didn't ask Sam Hill) so their foot position is comparable.
One thing I’ve been considering is whether taller riders benefit more from lower bottom bracket heights and I wonder if there’s anything in the idea of trying to adjust sizes accordingly - to ‘normalise’ the cog of shorter - taller riders. If that makes sense to anyone. There are several other factors involving handling etc to consider alongside but…yeah just something I’ve had in the back of my mind.
ultralong bikes are available, which is good. but there is nothing objective to say that a bike with a 480 reach needs 445+ chainstays. It's a hobby, that's a preference, and I will be very sad if we see all companies making the same enduro barges. i don't like the way they ride, and there are lots of us that don't.
Otherwise, you're free to pick FC/RC ratio as the defining characteristic of a bike, but I think you're greatly exaggerating the roll that static, seated weight distribution has to do in a sport that is very dynamic. As a dude with a long, torso, I can weight the front wheel with no problem, particularly on descents when I'm putting my face to the stem. I suspect at the same height, but with longer legs, wouldn't have the same weight distribution or ease of putting weight on the front. it's also worth noting that you get small changes in weight distribution for 10mm of CS growth (per bike designers who have studied it).
I respect the desire to have more equivalent bike experiences between sizes for the purposes of reviewing, but I don't know that controlling FC/RC is the leap forward you want it to be. Bike fit and tune is still pretty personal. Reviews are honestly just for entertainment anyway. PB's riding locations and styles don't reflect my own (not that it's their fault). I gotta ride a bike before I know if I want to buy it.
XL rider here abs long chainstays are forcing me into mediums. I am a half decent bike handler though, not remotely pro level, definitely don’t need any more stability.
+1
We might be in the minority, but the size specific chainstays just make L/XL bikes more and more boatlike
I'm right between xl and xxl on size charts, im not mad about there being an xxl option. I "size down" to a bike with 510mm reach.
Im 183 (6 ft in complicated) but with shorter legs, longer torso, wide shoulders and 190 cm wingspan.
I ride 495 mm reach and for the first time in my life I don't feel like I'm hanging over handlebars
I get very tired of people telling me my large Lithium is unbalanced. No way! My Large ESD is unbalanced, that thing has 417mm CS. But it's also a blast...
I can see how people with shorter arms might feel stuck in the middle of the bike though
I enjoy how unbalanced it is at 417. it's never going to plow as well as my lithium, so I like that I can unweight either wheel really easily with the shorter stays. it's a bit chaotic, but that's the fun.
I'm not complaining about radical geo, it's people saying there is one, best geometry. there isn't a perfect reach/chainstay (or FC/RC) ratio for all riders. I want bike companies making all sorts of different stuff. the ESD is a beautiful mutant.
Yoann, you know (really, really bad)
And the whole world has to answer right now
Just to tell you once again
I think Wingspan, and leg length makes a huge difference.
I'm 185cm tall, but with really long legs. I have a buddy who is taller by ~25mm, who needs to drop my saddle height to ride my bike.
If both of us do EXACTLY the same form (hinge at the hips), his shoulders/head will be ~25mm farther forward, and he will likely need a bike that is ~25mm longer in reach than mine.
But the flip side is also true. Same people, same hinging at the hips, my best fitting bike (in theory) would be ~25mm shorter in reach... but also higher in stack (otherwise I'd have to hinge more to reach the handlebars due to my longer legs).
Plus some companies still offer smallish L's like YT for example
Maybe I’m just strong enough to corner it.
Or maybe I should spend more time riding instead of lifting weights so I could be skilled enough to ride a medium
My n=1 feeling on a 480mm bikes with shorter rear ends was that having long arms and legs made me hinge further back due to the long limbs. Maybe a longer chain stay only would help the balance. Extending to 505mm reaxh 440mm rear made me feel perched in the middle easily and the most comfortable I have felt on a bike (that is with a 15mm shorter stem). Probably could have gone 490mm reach if i take that difference into account. I’m not opposed to the shorter stem in this bike.
I had no perceived (biased or not) issue personally flicking that bigger bike around but did initially adjust to committing to corners, but had none of the less than 50mm stem length washouts I was waiting for. I did have that running a 35mm on the shorter bike,
That was a short travel bike though so when my XL Madonna arrives I’ll have to see how the confirmation bias makes me feel in that situation
So much personal preference is in this. Trial and error, ride what you like/got/want
We all do this, to some extent. It would be better if we talked about what we liked more, and what's objectively "better" less.
Perhaps a fraction of that extra weight could be countered via lighter wheels. If the fork is stiffer, a little more flex could be allowed in the wheels, which might improve the traction more than flex in the fork.
None of this is certain, of course. This is how bikes evolve via incremental improvement.
Headangle: 64.31
(It seems Manitou is right to go with 37mm on the Mezzer)
Headangle: 64.3
Reach: 458
Stem: 40
Chainstay: 435
Rotors: 205
Stanchions: 37.1
Coil: 6
Air: 7
Women averages:
Headangle: 64.4166
Reach: 445.416
Stem: 37.0714
Chainstay: 435.2
Rotors: 202.2857
Stanchions: 36.6
Coil: 3
Air: 3
Men averages:
Headangle: 64.238
Reach: 468.5
Stem: 43.05
Chainstay: 434.0714
Rotors: 206.5
Stanchions: 37.5
Coil: 3
Air: 4
*wingspan not quite accurate due to missing data
Richie killed it
Also would've loved to have seen the fork/shock pressures included. I hear that Matt W runs his pretty hard.
Just sounds like you're rationalizing because pros have not embraced long chainstays (I doubt they will on current EWS courses, either). It's fine to like them anyway.
Look, keep liking long chainstays and reaches. It's a hobby. Just stop telling people they're faster and better in all situations. We already have Paul Aston to do that.
recites current sponsor's enduro race bike's head angle to the tenth of a degree>
Yeah, sure, because you've really tested 64.9 vs 65.1...
I also like the point made about pro MX, a sport that has been around for about 60 years. Ricky Camichael, recognized as the GOAT of the sport, was around 5’5” (167cm). He rode the same wheelbase bike as the pros who are 6 ft tall. There are no different frame sizes in MX. Sure they may use 5-10mm offset footpeg mounts, but that’s the only thing that would change the reach measurement of the frame and that’s a tiny amount in comparison to what different Mtb frames are. Most of the other adjustments are done with handlebar heights, bends and position. Some bar mounts which would be like changing the stem length. Maybe the reach number doesn’t have as much to do with rider size as it seems, maybe more with stability and handling feel? After all, all the pros want to go really fast.
As far as head angle goes, the point could be made that a lot of the EWS and enduro in general courses are not super steep. If you like to ride super steeps like the a lot of Sea to Sky corridor guys do, you might like things a touch slacker.
One last point, people can be off by a bit when asked how tall they are sometimes. We’ve all seen the dude who is 5’6 say he’s 5’9.5”. How are they all measuring their height? Barefoot, in spd shoes, hiking boots? Anyway, some variables to think about here.
Reach, head tube angle and chain stay length have been important numbers in the bike selection process. Forks can be swapped if needed, but for the most part, everyone is on Fox 38 except the Jeffsy. Brakes are a wild mix. The yet-to-be-named team has a lot to learn this year. We don't know what we don't know, but are having a blast learning to ride enduro.
I'd love to see a story about how to train for enduro.
I raced beginner 40+, wasn’t feeling it during practice yesterday on the hard tail chromag, crashed today in my first stage having never ridden the trail before. Before I crossed the finish line, I decided my future is being the coach and mechanic, not the competitor.
We haven’t created a social media account yet, but did decide on the team name: Hero Dirt Society. Stay tuned for the instagram page
1. New geo advocate/ bike buyer and coolaid drinker/Paul Aston - Pros are wrong and rely on pro level skills alone
2. Shorter bike advocate - Pros confirm I’m right, and longer reach/cs is a clear psyop by the industry for you to buy more bikes and allow crap riders to feel good
3. Old bike owner - Pros confirm I’m not missing out too much, old school for the win
4. Somewhat logical thinkers - Pros historically don’t like dramatic change (particularly the non DH disciplines). They ride tight twisty tracks often and take a shorter bike due to that last trade off (If only there were some quotes from pros or even B2B size comparisons from pros who say this).
The height/reach relationship is as follows: Reach = (-0.0231(height)^2) + (9.339(height)) - 465.59
The wingspan/reach+stem relationship is: Reach+stem = (0.0368(wingspan)^2) - (10.827(wingspan)) + 1267.5
There also isn't a good relationship between stem length and height but there is with reach, and no good relationship for height/wingspan/reach and chainstay length.
The average head angle is 64.3 with a mode of 64; average and mode stem length is 40.6 and 40. For chainstay length and rotor size, average and mode are 434.5/435 and 204.7 and 200 respectively.
Definitely interesting all are 64.X HA, in my non professional opinion I’ve felt no negatives going from 64.X down to 63.X, maybe that head angle is just what comes stock to them??
A lot of variables though, I bet some are riding slacker/steeper than they actually think as the full-sus frames will all have wildly differing dynamic values.
Climbing comfort is probably partly seat angle, descending confidence is probably partly wheelbase.
@PhillipJ: I’ve def found seat post angle to have a greater positive impact on climbing over longer wheelbase going between 480 and 500 reach frames.
Descending the 500 has more stability but it’s trickier to reliably weight the front tyre, and much more difficult to lift the front wheel, so much so I think it makes me ride worse as I just end up monster trucking.
The slacker HA however I feel improves descending without impacting agility, climbing or front end weighting.
That struck me. It's so easy to lock up the rear wheel (physics, ya know) that I wonder why anyone would want a bigger rotor on the rear.
Some argue that a larger rear rotor might help with modulation.
Its easier to lock up the rear, but unless your a ham fisted brake dragger, bigger rotors still have the same benefits front or rear.
I no longer need to preach short chainstays, I am redeeemed!
Long live the short chainstay!!
Yeah, I believe that, especially with small tweaks to the bike for a given track or race for some incremental performance gains. Overall, my impression of article and above is that so many people fixate on certain geo numbers on bikes (reach and chainstay length in particular) that isn’t really all that necessary and seems most run smaller bike (added maneuverability) given their size like Jack Moir and Richey Rude
I am also interested in a scatter graph of this data.
A pro's setup will most probably make you slower and make trails a lot less fun for you.
Make your own God damn setup and don't be a dick about it!
f*ck off, they're not "polar opposites" at all. That's so reductive it's insulting.
The spectrum of mountain biking is part of what makes it awesome. Some people just like to be on dirt and pedal for miles. Some people like to huck their meat and let it buck. If you're riding similar terrain to enduro pros, riding similar bikes, and have similar goals (rallying through rough shit at speed), taking a page from their setups certainly could help some riders. Yes, straight-up copying some random race winner's setup is stupid, but if you notice that some pro happens to ride the way you like to ride and also learn they're doing something different with their setup, it's worth at least giving it a try.
There are so many riders that don't ever really do a proper setup, and/or don't ever try different things setup-wise, it's kinda sad. Just exposing people to the variety of setups being used by the variety of pros going very hard and very fast could certainly help some riders start trying things and optimizing their setup, and that's a good thing.
Because they're the top of their field they can work with a smaller cockpit - I don't know, only spitballin'?
It's fun to see them taken down a few pegs by the fact that the world's best riders don't agree with them. It's even more fun to read all the desperate rationalizations for why we should ignore the best racers in the world. Clearly pros don't know as much about going fast as skankbanger420 on the PB forums! Lol.
Pro setups are not really compatible with casual riding styles. You will most likely be a lot slower on a pro's setup, than on the super long bikes made with the casual riders in mind.
Whatever, ride what you like!
It’s also curious that folks who ride their bikes for a living don’t seem to appreciate long front ends … things that make you go hmmmm.
(height in CM) * 2.55 = Desired Reach (I'll add +- 10mm)
When you run down all these riders, they are so often within that range. What we don't see is the super long 485-490mm reach bikes being desirable here for riders in that Large Range. Corners don't get wider just because I'm on an XL...
It also would have been interesting to see the preferred bar widths.
www.pinkbike.com/news/video-what-handlebar-width-are-racers-using-at-the-ews-tweed-valley.html
A couple of years ago Enduro-MTB made the case that if a bike comes with mismatched rotors, some riders should consider moving the larger one to the back for that reason.
200mm front and rear are more than enough for normal riding for me. On 2k vertical technical descents in the alps, I need 220mm and HS2 rotors to prevent overheating.
If you look at a lot of the enduro/DH pros when they are standing next to their bikes, their bars are somewhere in between the top of their pelvis an naval.
That’s about where I am.
I'm 6'0" and ride 510mm Reach.
www.pinkbike.com/news/video-what-handlebar-width-are-racers-using-at-the-ews-tweed-valley.html
Most are scared too (I don't want to) because getting smoked ain't a good feeling.
Modern bikes are way too long for some riders, it's like buying a golf club... Beginners need larger sweet spots, as you improve you buy clubs with a tighter sweet spot, more control and more distance. The large sleet spot is the long bike, the smaller sweet spot is the shorter, more nimble bike (they tend to corner faster...)
Not unlike big trucks and their small
penis drivers
I love how the downvoting works, moves all the good stuff off the board cuz bros ain’t got the balz to hear the truth.
Join Pinkbike Login