Well, I'm assuming that you're asking because you noticed that the trails feel a bit smoother than when you were running those little pizza cutters, so you probably already know what the answer is. You hit on one of the main reasons that more and more people are using wider tires - increased comfort. This will be most noticeable when you've put some high-volume rubber on a short-travel bike, or especially a hardtail, and can be amplified even more by also using wider rims that further help matters. I'm a big fan of short-travel bikes combined with wide rubber as it makes the bike more forgiving and capable without taking away from the agility advantage that most short-travel rigs have over their longer-stroke brothers. Added comfort isn't the only benefit of going wide, however, as the combo of high-volume rubber on a wide rim can also deliver much more traction thanks to the lower air pressures that it requires. I'm not convinced that there's much downside to such a setup if one isn't a cross-country racer (the tires and rims weigh more, of course), and I'd also argue that a wide setup doesn't roll any slower than a skinnier, more traditional setup of similar weight. You don't need to go plus-sized, either, as a large 2.3'' wide tire on a wide rim can do the trick if you're used to a skinny tire on a narrow rim. - Mike Levy |
I'd keep the BoXXer World Cup on if I was in your shoes. The Charger damper makes it feel much better than the Totem ever did when it comes to small bump sensitivity, and you should be able to adjust the rebound to make the bike feel as 'lively' as you'd like. It used to be that the feel of a coil sprung fork was drastically different than that of one with an air spring, but those days are becoming distant memories, and today's air sprung options feel better than ever. The BoXXer World Cup is basically an oversized Pike, and that's a good thing - it's supple, predictable, and easily adjustable. The ability to fine tune the air pressure of the BoXXer World Cup puts it ahead of the coil sprung Team in my book - that way there's no chance of getting stuck between spring rates. Plus, you can alter the the amount of end stroke ramp up (via the use of Bottomless Tokens) to further adjust the fork to suit your riding style or for different tracks. - Mike Kazimer |
Your research is correct. With long legs for your height, you would be a more efficient pedaler with 175 millimeter crank arms. That said, road racers with similar body types commonly use 172.5-millimeter crank arms and they slog up steep grades in massively tall gears all day long, so you should be able to get used to the reduced leverage of 170's, considering that your Santa Cruz is geared considerably lower. I also prefer 175 millimeter cranks, however, especially for technical climbing, and have found alternatives to running shorter crankarms that may be a more effective solution to your problem. While your Nomad's static bottom bracket height measurement is fixed, its ride height - where the suspension settles while it is rolling - is affected by its suspension settings. If you have the option, adding a small amount of low-speed compression damping to the shock and fork will raise your bike's ride height. Also, excessive low-speed rebound damping will lower the bike's ride height, so check that too. You can also adjust ride height using spring pressure, but it's more complicated. Removing a volume spacer and increasing spring pressure will raise the ride height and maintain bottom out control. Conversely, adding volume spacers and reducing spring pressure will lower the ride height while maintaining bottom out control. A crank purchase is final, but you can micro-adjust your damping to find the right balance between pedal clearance and cornering stability. Also, if you ride Crankbrother's Mallet pedals, you might try switching out to the shorter Mallet E spindles, which will give you a narrower Q factor (52mm vs. 57mm) and more pedal clearance while the bike is angled or being maneuvered. - RC |
Bike sizing is always going a contested argument, so to preface this answer I will let you know where I am at: I am 6'1" with a 6'4" arm span and a 36" inseam. Currently, my preferred 160mm travel bike that I feel fits me the best is a Nicolai GeoMetron in Longest size which is around the 510mm reach mark and using a 35mm stem. I'm also riding an XL Canyon Sender at 480mm with a 50mm stem which is the most comfortable downhiller I've ridden to date. So my recommendation is that you would be after something that fits properly with the shortest stem possible, I would never recommend using a stem to make a bike fit and a stem over 60mm will ruin any kind of ride quality on anything except road climbs, in fact, anything over 45mm makes me a little queasy. After hearing these recommendations people think I just have a big length fetish, but having a bike that fits well and is long enough makes every aspect of your riding life easier: Having space in the cockpit lets you breathe more easily, straightens your spine takes pressure off your lower back and lets you relax. It makes absorbing impacts and pumping through compressions easier and balancing the bike to get weight on either tire becomes much more sensitive. So what does that leave you with? Downhill bike wise the Canyon Sender, Pivot Phoenix, Santa Cruz V10, are the biggest all around the 480mm reach mark. The Pole Evolink is the biggest production downhill bike at 510mm and make shorter travel bikes up to a 530mm reach. Opting for a shorter travel bike opens up your options somewhat with Mondraker, Santa Cruz, Guerilla Gravity and Nicolai all having options over 500mm. Finally, you could go custom, Nicolai can make bikes to order and somebody in Switzerland recently received a custom built GeoMetron with a whopping 580mm reach. Robot Bike Co can print you a monster if you have deep enough pockets and maybe a smaller brand like BTR Bikes from the UK could knock something up for a price. I'm sure there are some other brands out there, so check the comments as I'm sure people will pipe up. I hope that helps. - Paul Aston |
About Us
Contacts FAQ Terms of Use Privacy Policy Sign Up! SitemapAdvertise
AdvertisingCool Features
Submit a Story Product Photos Videos Privacy RequestRSS
Pinkbike RSS Pinkbike Twitter Pinkbike Facebook Pinkbike Youtube
Physiology is indeed a major factor to determine crank arm length, but depending on what formula you use, experts you ask or theories you apply, you may find yourself wandering between 2 or 3 viable options.
So.. considering other factors (such as ground clearance) is totally fine.
On top of that, you are processing a lot of stuff, quickly (assuming you are trying to go fast)...having to worry about that is one more thing you don't need.
Also, we've changed crank lengths to fit the bike use forever...short cranks on track bikes to give more clearance same with DH bikes, 165 cranks are the rule no matter your height.
B - a whole load of my local singletrack is very tight and twisty and rooty, whilst being relatively flat, so when you're in a fast mood you're pedalling as soon as you exit a corner. In dry conditions a higher BB is simply quicker. In slippery conditions a lower BB is better on the same trails, as it is on steeper trails all the time.
(Based on bikes with 294-333mm sagged BB heights, 165-175mm cranks and 34" legs!)
I'm 6' with 34" inseam and run 165mm cranks on road/cx bikes and 170mm on MTB. I used to run 175mm cranks on all my bikes.. in my experience there is minimal downside to shorter cranks and lots of advantages.
I have found 170 better than 175 for demanding trail and I use 165 for DH...I will try 165 on a trail bike next time I buy a crank...
They seem to stress my knees less and keep me much smoother and more ready to push (I think that's because my knee bend angle is on average lower with shorter cranks).
I've got very long legs...the weight of lifting my legs is very noticeable and I'm definitely able to climb technical much better with shorter cranks....I'm getting over stuff twice the size I normally would struggle on ... ground clearance helps but its pedal stroke "readiness" that make the difference (whether seated or out of the seat).
That's gear choice, not crank length.
Only technical climbing (there you have high torque situations, like roots or steps) could suffer. But it is suffering now too because of pedal strikes.
Im 6'2" , ride an XL Nomad, and 165 cranks - I love it, and dont feel anything wierd, except better clearance. Matching cranks to physiology is BS best reserved for roadies, and even they did studies where they determined cranks from 130 to 180 produced the same power output, with slightly different cadences.
@guybff go short!!! You wont notice, and the Nomad is best served with 165 cranks, 170 if you must. 175 cranks are unnecssary for 99% of riders. Physiology is BS, as preference and feel matter more. How many of you did physiological measurements to determine ideal stem length and bar width to within 5mm?!? 175 -> 165 is a ~6% change, it is not extreme. Drop 2 teeth in the chainring and youll pedal the same.
69cm quads
222cm femur
51 % fast twitch
Universal multiplier of 8
6922251 * 8 =
and I look at the calculator upside down and now I'm BOOBLESS.
I'm confused, what length stem do I need again?
just waiting on my new turbine cinch 175's to show up I also ride a 2x 21/34 front 11/36 rear best up and down shore combo ive tried.
wider tires are:
- less aerodynamic (which is a *huge* deal on mtbs above 20kph)
- heavier (some "same weight setup" is just a pink pony - same everything, a 2.1" tire is lighter than a 2.4" tire and a 24mm rim is lighter than a 30mm rim. every. single. time. logic is hard how much?)
- higher rolling resistance (what do you think "traction" is exactly? its friction between the tire and the ground. also called rolling resistance. Sometimes you want more. Sometimes you want less.)
So they have drawbacks. For slowish descending and slowish climbing, for quite a few people that's totally fine trade-offs to make though, and many end up with 2.4 to 3.0" (fat) tires.
At the end of the day it's all about balance. Anywhere from 2.0 to 3.0 seem to have its place - but saying wider is always better with no drawback, is incorrect and honestly, just stupid.
Cranks are a fairly cheap thing to try too.
When bike shopping as a taller guy, you need to look at seat tube length in addition to top tube length and the reach measurement. There's no sense picking a bike with a long top tube that fits horizontally but when you pedal, your knees collide with your elbows. Go long in all directions.
I have an XXL Tallboy LTc that I will be selling shortly (no pun) if you are interested
For trail also look at the Mega 290 XL...it also has decent length CS (why I bought one)...this matters if your tall and climbing steeper stuff.
Bikes that fit well too: Banshee Prime, Pivot Switchblade, Canyon Spectral 27,5. The last one is a bargain compared to the others.
The recommended Nicolai Geometron rides well but is very expensive at 6200€.
I agree higher pressures run faster on smooth, lower faster on rough. But still hold that width has very little effect for a given pessure. Infact wider is arguably slightly faster on any surface for a given pressure as the contact patch wont be as long. Pressure is the most important variable by far.
Horses for courses I suppose.