Video: Remi Gauvin Tests Medium & Large Size Frames Back to Back

May 10, 2021 at 23:16
by Miranda Miller  

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!

MGM Alternative


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.

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


102 Comments

  • 125 0
 Honestly, one of the best new MTB channels out there. Interesting content, good cast of characters, not too serious, but not too jokey jokey. Really enjoying their stuff so far.
  • 18 0
 Glad you are enjoying the videos!
  • 3 0
 Possibly the best thing to watch on youtube! This is a fantastic idea for a video.
  • 1 0
 Your username is very funny! Respect!
  • 51 6
 "Bikes are getting longer, lower, slacker but Remi has stayed the same."
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?"
  • 58 4
 That's assuming that what a "medium" is at the moment is the exact perfect size for a "medium" person.
  • 16 0
 Came here to post the same quote. I agree with Sam. Anecdotal evidence of course, but I find these super stretched bikes are not as nimble and less "fun" when your not hauling ass.
  • 7 4
 Shape of body can affect size choice too, I am 5'8" and have ridden large and medium, I prefer large for DH and medium for everything else, but I have a long trunk and stubby little legs. Given only one option I would take the large as it is much more stable at speed.
  • 6 0
 @Bomadics: I agree that personal choice is also something to consider. Im 6' and also have a long trunk and stubby legs, however, vs the XL they say I should be on I go L every time. The compromise is less stability at high speeds. I have to be honest with myself and I know I will never go speeds that these pros do so L is the perfect size which in the end yields more fun per km.
  • 3 1
 @zombiejack33: That's it, for us regular Joe's it is all about having the most fun! For Remi, who by that way is one of three world cup racers that has stood in my garage, it is all about shaving seconds.
  • 2 6
flag jzPV (May 11, 2021 at 10:28) (Below Threshold)
 @Bomadics: I'd say with short legs downsizing makes more sense to be honest, because long legs put your center of gravity much more forwards than a long torso. There was a dialed episode about stuff like that and that's also what Jordi said when I asked him. But at the end of the day that's all just theory and I'd like more opportunities to try stuff...
  • 2 0
 @jzPV: But I have a long torso, so the small cockpit feels cramped, your solution would mean I am on a small frame, no way does that work for me. I also move around on the bike depending on what I am riding so a longer wheelbase makes me feel more secure, especially on steeps.
  • 7 0
 @zombiejack33: "The compromise is less stability at high speeds. I have to be honest with myself and I know I will never go speeds that these pros do..."
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.
  • 1 1
 @Bomadics: that's not what I meant, not upsizing (a medium) would be my personal conclusion and sticking to a 50mm stem. But it always depends on preference...
  • 1 0
 I have been saying this for years!

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.
  • 1 1
 Is a Medium frame getting bigger? A 5010.3 has a cm longer nominal toptube than a 5010.4, both Medium. Rider compartment must fit at max saddle height or the rest of it doesn't matter. If stem is much shorter than fork rake, you're losing cornering weightability
  • 2 0
 @chacou: Can take that one step further. Speed is the #1 mechanism for injury on a bike and I often scrub a bit more speed in chunky sections than I need to because having a high speed crash there would be catastrophic. I'm really not looking to ride trails as fast as humanly possible, just fast enough to make it exciting, and a more moderate reach makes the bike more fun in all of the tighter, jankier, jumpier, pop up and over places on the trail. The whole trick to riding a slightly smaller bike is learning to pivot at the hips. I actually got that from the instructional video Yoann put out last year!

@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.
  • 5 0
 Yeah, sam hill also didn't fall for the whole wider bars are better, saying "my shoulders aren't getting any bigger"
  • 1 1
 @Wesleybikes: Very true but...

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.
  • 2 0
 @betsie: that's a complex theory, fit for a physicist. Difficult to follow you on V10s, as Santa bike archive geo is missing, incomplete, or both. An XL 10.5 has a shorter wheelbase than a Medium 10.6...really? I suppose you're at 250mm as well. Where/how do you think you're gaining time on the 26"?--soft suspension with narrow, more aero bar, but a >1 stem length:rake ratio for quick lean-in? Ever used a WTB Vigilante? How fun are we at parties?

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
  • 1 1
 @ceecee: I am probably the most boring person in MTB, super enthusiastic about testing and stats (might be the development engineer in me, stuck in a no winds lab just now testing stuff).

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 Smile
  • 1 0
 In other news, Remi has TWO new bikes. Paying customer...has ZERO. Kidding. it's a joke
  • 1 0
 @blowmyfuse: Can you imagine? That would be so sick to have 2 bikes to compare even without the covid shortage
  • 1 0
 @zombiejack33: "Raise your hand if you've got 2 $7000+ custom tuned race rigs. Anyone? Oh..."
  • 1 0
 @betsie: please do. You're looping out on clicks
  • 5 0
 @blowmyfuse: Oh Over here!
  • 1 0
 @remrem: Just so you know, that made me spit water!!! Hah!!! So glad you responded.

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'!!!!
  • 20 1
 I'm in the same spot as Remi. I'm 5'10" so I seem to always slot in as a "tweener" in bike sizing. And over the years I've ridden both larges and mediums but have to settled down to mediums. That's where I started many, many years ago because back in the day there was no question which size I should ride, and that's where I've ended up even through all of the bike geo changes that have happened over the years (some bike companies today insist I should be on a large, which I've done, and regretted it). Mediums just feel better for me, more flickable, cornering feels better, just easier to throw around and handle. Larges have always felt like buses to me. Yes, in a straight line through the chunder the large is going to plow. No doubt about that. But in almost every other situation mediums feel like they fit me and my riding better. And in those straight line chunder scenarios mediums just become a "wild ride!" and keep me honest as a rider. Gotta be a little smarter in those sections. Everywhere else, medium for me is just more fun.

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!
  • 23 4
 He isn’t trying to compare a medium to a large for your benefit, he is comparing race setups and he has already ruled out the stock medium as a race setup for him personally. It’s a question of whether a modified Medium or a stock large is better for someone who feels the stock medium is just too small.
  • 1 1
 Put the angleset in if your trails are steep, fast enough with chunk and drops. reducing the HA between 64.5-65.5 and stretching the WB will produce a better ride (may need a longer stem tho) more stable ride while remaining fun and flickable adding confidence while descending.
  • 4 8
flag adespotoskyli (May 11, 2021 at 10:26) (Below Threshold)
 Fitting an angle set will shorten the bike's reach so not exactly large but closer to small, wheelbase wise maybe towards large, this comparison is useles, either try a longer wheelbase/reach or a slacker ha, to many variants to actually pin point what's best when your geometry is all over the place. And as moseley once said in a 27.5 vs 29er test when another rider commented 29ers are fast but 27.5 are more 'fun' she said, for me fun is going fast.
  • 2 0
 @adespotoskyli: But the fun stops when you can't seem to make the tighter turns at speed and accelerate out with more power. The angle set will do as you mentioned but account for a longer stem to put things back where it was. You must have missed where Remi did that.
  • 1 1
 @RobHesse: Ride 9, ride ten...I guess Medium Slayer 29 isn't a good race bike
  • 1 0
 I'm similar, at 5-10 1/2", have owned both M and L bikes. There are a handful of bikes that make a M/L size, this was one of the determining factors, I've ordered a M/L '21 Trek Slash, its 18.5"
  • 1 2
 @likeittacky: I manage tight turns better on my long bike than my previous more normal sized bikes, mostly skills than bike geometry and challenges are fun as well. I didn't missed the bit with the longer stem, that's exactly my point, shortening the reach, slacking the head angle and longer stem are many variants to pin point what exactly helps or not, actually is a quite different bike to any of the standard medium or large
  • 6 0
 If he runs a -1 degree angleset on the smaller bike, isn't the apples-to-apples comparison lost with a slacker HTA? I could argue he ran a faster time because his HTA is slacker... maybe he'd be even faster on the large with a -1 HTA.
  • 8 0
 I wasnt really trying to compare apples to apples. I was trying to compare potential race bike to potential race bike. I have also ridden the large with an angleset in the past and felt that it put the front wheel just slightly too far away for me to weight the front wheel properly. The stock large is a good starting place for me!
  • 2 0
 @remrem: either way - great vid. Can't say i'm too surprised you went faster on the slacker HTA (que grim donut video)... but fully acknowledge there's more to a bike than just HTA. Also wonder if slacker HTA contributed to the front tire wash-out on your last run... thanks for the reply Remi - cheers
  • 5 0
 I've always been thorn between M and L and am pretty much the same height/size as Remi... I always go for M because it is what I know and have been ring for 30 years (yep I'm that old!) ... Not sure the video provides a clear answer or helps me decide 100%, but definitely proves that my questionning is legit... I've always hoped for the opportunity to do this kind of back to back testing... Merci from Mont Sainte-Anne
  • 1 0
 a handful of bikes make a M/L size now, I've ordered a M/L Trek Slash
  • 1 0
 @rjmogul: I have a 2020 large slash and looking at a ML 2021 Slash. I'm 510
  • 1 0
 Same here: 5'9 so could ride both. Decided on a brand where 5'9 is a medium without a doubt (Propain Tyee) .. but that was in a time when there was actual a choice to make :-)
  • 6 1
 Cm * 2.5 (or 2.55 for steeper riding) is Lee McCormacks fairly rough formula for getting a reach that should be close enough to proper fitment. For Remi that number would be 445mm of reach based on that formula (using 2.5). Remi's medium bike with the angle set is right about spot on for that (he is using Position 3 on Ride9 too). While there are different horses for courses obviously, it remains that proper bike fitment for us mortals still shouldn't be an ultra-long sled in most cases. If you can't handle the stability issues (on less than DH tracks)...you don't need a new 5k$ longer bike, you can safely spend less on coaching. My opinion at least. Also parents, stop overbiking your kid, you aren't saving any money and there are way too many "passenger" kids on huge bikes instead of "pilots". The need fundamentals more than rollover, at least until they are super-groms.
  • 3 1
 Amen.

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.
  • 6 1
 I find it hillarious that average sized folk upsize to XL (like up to 182cm/6ft or so tall) and they're obviously riding too big of a bike but will do everything to claim it not so.

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.
  • 6 1
 I find it hilarious that most people actually believe the bike industry actually knows what they are taking about when it comes to sizing. The same industry that doesn't have a standard for any given size between brands and increases reach on said size EVERY year! When people ask what size bike I ride I always answer compared to what brand? My size "L" Nicolai G1 is the same as XXL Santa Cruz for example.

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.
  • 7 0
 But which one is more fun?
  • 5 2
 I'm all on board with the "bigger is better" train.

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.
  • 3 0
 I should also comment my other option (and size of choice for over 20+ years) is a size small - I find they're just too small (wheelbase wise). Plus, in the steeps I was going over the bars waaay to often for my liking.
  • 2 0
 @lastminutetech: 5'6" here too, 455-460 reach seems to be the sweet spot for me. Always used to run a small, now most of mine are Med apart from my Nomad V4 which is a Large.
  • 3 0
 Glad to see that companies are generally making bikes physically larger across the board....or at least they offer models within their lineup that are bigger as they evolve with regards to "modern geo". At 6'5" I have yet to come across a trail/enduro bike that is to big for me.
You short shredders have it WAY better than you think.
  • 5 0
 Straight up
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!
  • 1 0
 @stormracing: All good for you giant fellow. I am 6’2” and often have the same problem Smile
  • 1 0
 Agreed, I'm also 6'5" and only just feel like bikes are being made to fit people my height. For so long bikes would have tiny reach with too long seat tubes.
  • 3 0
 Really depends on body. I am between sizes but I have very long legs and short torso and for me bigger is better. Especially in the corners I feel like I have bars near my hipps and no room. I think it is all very personal. And also depending on brand. XL reach of Rocky Mauntain Altitude is 505, and for example Nukeproof is 515 and Kona Process X is 525 and Nicolai is 535. Also I think about one more factor - maybe I could be faster on smaller bike on short track but I find it more tiring me so chose bigger if I want to ride all day.
  • 4 0
 I think it mainly comes down to how confident you feel on it. If you feel like you can crush things and still keep it under control then that's the frame size for you
  • 2 0
 Exactly. This video is completely about my own feelings on these bikes. For example someone my height (5’10) might have slightly longer legs or arms and have a completely different finding to the same test on the same track.
  • 1 0
 This was a good test and his description of difference's were explained very well. Especially like that He had an angleset and longer stem on the Med. to compensate wheelbase, reach, cornering and stability. Just my take on frame sizing but not having opportunity to do so helped greatly! Also the fact that a smaller frame when your not pinning it, will be much more fun just playing around on
  • 1 0
 I'm 5'10 w/ 32" inseam. I have owned a Medium Scott Scale and Spark for many years and have been completely comfortable on both. I recently bought Large Scale as I've been curious about moving up a size.

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.
  • 1 0
 To be honest I'm surprised bike manufacture have not copied Trek in making a M/L frame size. Reading this post and other bike forums its actually pretty common for people to be in-between sizes. I myself was glad to see Trek do a M/L Slash as I was one of the those in-between size riders. The average men's height in the US is 5'9" (175cm) which for many manufactures is the top of the medium height scale but on the bottom end of the large scale.
  • 1 1
 video doens't go over climbing position, you can see him pretty cramped on that medium. These new bikes with their super slack HA but super steep ST and long wheel base but a cramped AF seated position..... I can do just fine on my hd4 with 74 Seat tube angle and 65 HA. cranking that sucker to 64 and 77 would just make it feel tiny climbing, and totally unneccessary. Ive always ridden Xl but now they're 1300mm wheelbase! and a large has a tiny cockpit. .......
  • 5 0
 Climbing isn't relevant. He is an Enduro racer trying to find the fastest set-up going down.
  • 4 0
 @Ososmash: its true.
  • 1 1
 @Ososmash: I get that but for everyone else using this as Info for themselves. Don't tell yourself that a smaller new age bike is gonna workout well unless you like your knees hitting the bars
  • 8 6
 Longer bikes feel saver and this is what makes me as a non professional weekend warrior faster. This is all I need.
  • 8 0
 Unless your terrain is tighter, where then it feels like you're just navigating a boat around the turns. But yeah, white open, rough fast tracks is where the longer bikes shine.
  • 8 9
 @withdignityifnotalacrity:

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
  • 13 0
 @Solorider13: A taller/longer body will generally have more leverage and clearance for controlling a longer wheel base and taller frame. Envision a 5'4" rider trying to pivot around tight corners on an XL frame, for an exaggerated example.
  • 7 0
 @Solorider13: It's almost like having a bike that's appropriate for your size and terrain makes a big difference!
  • 1 0
 You've basically stated exactly what the bike industry is pushing on consumers.

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.
  • 3 0
 @HaggeredShins: The key there is you said you'd take "today's" medium. That bike is yesterday's XL. My Ripmo AF is a 2020 bike with 473/1237 in Large. Your perfect "medium" is the result of the industry pushing the direction it is, and there are lots of people out there taller, who need the L/XL models.
  • 2 0
 @mammal: The key to what? I don't have a horse in the race with upper limits, that has nothing to do with my post.

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.
  • 1 0
 The -1 headset probably made more difference than the bike sizing, ime. It was clear he was going faster in the 4th video for sure.
  • 1 0
 Just traded my 2020 Trek Slash size L for a 2021 size M. It fits perfect with their new changes in geo/sizing. Very happy with the change!
  • 2 0
 Curious what you guys are using for the timing? Love the channel guys!
  • 1 0
 Freelap system
  • 1 0
 Freelap timing systems .... quite expensive but the gold standard in many sports (Skiing, Running eg)
  • 2 0
 Exactly why I ride a ml slash perfect for all us 5,9s out there..
  • 5 0
 Man, I really wish more brands were tuned into ML sizing. I mean, 5'9"/5'10" is literally the fat part of the bell curve for North American males and we're constantly between sizes!
  • 1 0
 We can't find a single 12-speed chain and then you have this guy grabbing a bike in every size... jeesh. :-)
  • 2 0
 5’11 and recently sized down to a M and I couldn’t be happier!
  • 1 0
 A handful of companies make M/L size I've gone with a M/L Trek
  • 1 0
 "Nice, comfy, safe..." sounds like a good moto! Defo why I like riding a bigger bike Smile
  • 1 0
 His warm up lap was probably 60% faster than my hot lap would be!
  • 1 0
 Part of me doesn't know how my bike should fit anymore.
  • 1 0
 It's only prove that head angle is more significant than reach !
  • 1 0
 Long bikes feel good for bad riders.
  • 2 2
 so no difference in times then.
  • 3 0
 1.75seconds over a sub 1:30 track isnt nothing...
  • 1 2
 The experiment has no validity and the results are not remotely reliable. You can’t take anything away from it. @remrem:
  • 1 1
 Looks like coil versus air would make a way bigger difference.
  • 2 0
 Like he says in the video, he used the same coil shock on both the bikes.
  • 1 1
 This also seems to be a COIL vs. AIR video...
  • 2 0
 Coil was swapped over to both bikes for consistency
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



You must login to Pinkbike.
Don't have an account? Sign up

Join Pinkbike  Login
Copyright © 2000 - 2021. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.015548
Mobile Version of Website