Are longer bikes
really faster, or have geometry trends gone too far?
I tested Canyon's super-long Strive in the Large and Xl sizes to find out. At 191 cm or six foot three inches tall, I could ride either one according to
Canyon's sizing chart.
In my
review, I decided to test the size large, but since then I've been wondering how the XL would compare. In the above video, I rode the two sizes with identical setups on a familiar three-minute track to find out.
Seb Stott
Height: 6'3" / 191cm
Inseam: 37" / 93cm
Weight: 189 lbs / 86 kg, kitted
While timing is far from everything here are the lap times from the test.
Large vs. XL lap times
Lap 1: XL - warm-up
Lap 2: XL - 2:56 (Not fully up to speed)
Lap 3: L - 2:52
Lap 4: L - 2:52
Lap 5: XL - 2:52
Lap 6: XL - 2:56 (held up)
Lap 7: L - 2:52
In tests like these, I see timing as a way to calibrate the subjective feelings on the bike, rather than as a conclusion in itself. For example, sometimes one bike feels more hectic or twitchy than another, but if you're riding it faster, that makes sense; whereas, if it feels more hectic yet you're going slower, that paints a strong picture of how the bike's performing.
In this case, the times were remarkably similar. Aside from the first timed lap where I was not yet fully up to speed, and one where I was held up by another rider, all the times were around 2 minutes and 52 seconds. The timing system was far from precise, but this is good enough to say that neither bike was outright faster for me on this course. The ride feel was quite different, however, and I try my best to articulate this in the video.
The Strive's geometry chart for reference. Imagine shifting the size names in the first row one place to the left and it makes a lot more sense.
One question I didn't answer in the video is this: if I preferred the large to the Xl, would the medium be better still? With a reach of 480 mm and a wheelbase of 1,270 mm (according to Canyon), the medium Strive is comparable to a size large from most brands, and as big as many Xls from a few years ago. (I actually think Canyon's sizing makes more sense if you think of the Xl as an XXL, the large as an Xl and so on.) I've ridden plenty of bikes with numbers in that ballpark in the past, and for me, going from around 480 mm reach to 500 mm results in a noticeable improvement in stability and comfort, but beyond this point, there are diminishing returns on the positive side and increasing downsides, particularly when it comes to keeping enough weight on the front wheel.
In this test, both bikes had the same rear-centre length. Would the conclusion be different if the rear-centre grew in proportion to the front-centre, thereby giving the XL more front-wheel grip? (This would mean making the XL's chainstay 12 mm longer.) That's another question for another time.
Large vs. XL lap times
Lap 1: Xl - warm-up
Lap 2: XL - 2:56 (Not fully up to speed)
Lap 3 L - 2:52
Lap 4 L - 2:52
Lap 5 Xl - 2:52
Lap 6 XL - 2:56 (held up)
Lap 7L - 2:52
XL or Xl?
Large or L?
What happened to the colons?
Space after 7?
Have you no humanity?
XI = 11 (as in "it goes to 11")
Hahaha.
Jack is riding the fastest and most physically demanding tracks on the world on small.
Jack Moir is 6'1". He only looks really tall compared the average sized pro enduro rider - they are mostly midgets
I do find it kind of funny that all of a sudden it's become trendy to shout "bikes are too long, I'm going to size down 5 sizes," when not that long ago everyone was shouting "bikes are too short, I'm going to size up 5 sizes." Unless your name is Greg Minnaar, that is. He's still making his bikes longer.
Also, the shortest bikes haven't been consistently faster in the Field Tests - it's been a mixed bag as far as timed testing results have gone.
The whole thing of "what works for pros doesn't really work for normal riders" doesn't entirely hold water. If it does, prove it. Do a decent sample test with a handful of riders and typical size bike...and a downsized bike. Dial the fitment of course too. Similar to what Remy/Richie Rude have done for a long time. Maybe throw in a 2019 gen geo bike (before the sizing hit its current apex) too). Its not like PB can't invest in a sweet test like Enduro did, but better.
Just do this but better and with normal bikes not the pros:
enduro-mtb.com/en/enduro-race-bike-mtb-review
Reaches have been getting longer and longer and every degree of head angle reduction increases FC by a few cm, off the top of my head around 3cm longer per degree of HA on average, so a bike that was 68º a few years ago is now 63º and has a much longer reach too: A huge difference in the FC length.
Chainstays are still really short at 435mm on this bike. I'm running 495mm CS and 495mm reach and I can still manual and corner easily, if not much much better than ever. It's only Strava, but I'm taking KOM's off young semi-pro enduro racers that should be smoking me. And this is on green flow trails and I'm riding a single speed DH with the longest wheelbase on earth and I'm old and slow.
Moir is an anomaly. These racers have limited time to get the performance out of a production bike on a race track, they are not spending all winter trying a massive range of things. Generally, it's like this: "take your salary and this bike we made and never tested very much, go as fast as you can and win, or we're not paying you anymore"
Perhaps he is faster on the small bike and small CS, he might be a lot faster on the XL frame with an XL chainstay?
So your theory is that longer, more balanced stays...along with perhaps a more meager front (which keeps leverage high for manuals etc to balance the longer stays) could be "the way"?
Fwiw I also am prettttty sure Moir gets to tryout any freaking size bike he wants from his brand.
Out of all of this, it seems like no one has the appetite to simply grab some mates, rent some bikes and spend the weekend shuttling and timing things. I don't get why sites like PB can't figure out how to test this out. SO....how about Paul Aston and friends (sample size is important), go run the test and make some money off of the deluge of hits. Manufacturer's can likely use the information and stopping messing around with wonky stuff. What freaking works and what does. And I don't just mean for speed, but also for fun...and perhaps a bit of climbing too. It can't be that hard to prove. Having read a bunch of your stuff, you are on to something with longer chainstays too I think. Especially for us tall guys (I'm 193cm) where I'm likely riding chainstays meant for a medium but the manuf didn't want to spend on a second chainstay mold for a small buying segment.
I’ve personally heard several pros talk about how the sizing down has to do with balance of the bike and creating for better cornering…
Anyways… stoked to see you say that all on here as a lot of people respect and highly value your opinion and effort to test. I do as well. Love seeing it and stoked to see what you are coming up with
"Balanced geometry" is a bunch of horseshit. Nothing about longer reaches requires a longer chainstay. I hate a long CS, but love long reaches. My most "unbalanced" bike has a reach of 490mm and chainstays that are 417mm. It is a bit weird, but it corners amazingly well.
Balanced is a PB echochamber term, and I dislike how the reviewers here tend to push it, because they're purposefully very similar in body types. Just like their obsession with STA. We get it, you have long legs, guys.
As a man with a long torso and short-ass legs, I'll keep buying from manufacturers that give me what I like. I'm not against longer chainstays, too, since some people like them, but there is no objective evidence that they're better. Saying they're "balanced" is just not
This is not in any intention to insult but can I ask what the numbers were for what would have been the most balanced bike you have tried and what it was that you specifically did not like?
I personally find a longer rear end to help with corner a lot. That being set, the way people corner is kinda changing with this whole shralp mentality and that I can agree is easier on a shorter rear end. But the normal way a corner gets ridden I find a longer rear end to be much better.
As Kaz said above though, things are definitely personal preference and based off proportions etc of the body and everyone is different.
That’s rad you’ve found what works for you. Im finding what works for me as well and just wish the rears were a lot longer
I've ridden bikes with a reach of 450 and chainstays of 437. I also own the Honzo ESD which has adjustable chainstays, and I've played with those. I like em slammed.
I'm glad you know what you like, and I'm not against long chainstays. I just don't think we need to pretend that it's somehow "balanced" or better for everybody.
I mean look at how much cash Aston dropped just to modify that one bike..
it’s tough and frustrating but it’s just marketing at its finest.. and Selling to the masses. I think we’ve run too far with certain trends in the industry and we are starting to see some of the ‘consequences’(if you view it like that) of those trends
Yeah I agree with what all you said. And you are right, it’ll definitely never happen on a site like this. Definitely should come from and looks like it will be coming from someone like Aston.
I, like you, would much prefer preferences and proportions being discussed so there is better context. Maybe someday we will get more of it…
Dang, that’s pretty good balance! I wish at XL I could get things even remotely that close! Had to do some frankenbiking to get within like 40…
I don’t think it’s necessarily better for everybody but I do think that by numbers it is more balanced… balanced doesn’t always mean better for everyone though like you said but for some it sure is. I’ll say then I’m stoked it’s easier at the moment for you to find proportions within your preference, always makes it easier to shop! Thankfully there’s becoming more solutions for folks like myself to slowly get closer and closer to my preferred proportions as well( little creativity gets the job done)
"As soon as I got hold of the bike, I broke out the tape measure to check Canyon's numbers. This is something I always do, and usually, it just confirms what I already knew. But this time it revealed some important differences. The chainstay on my bike measures 442 mm, and the wheelbase measures 1,312 mm in the neutral headset position - both longer than claimed."
At a minimum, it is a fair point that it would have been interesting for the test.
"that's not true at all. Reach is a fixed number that can be very useful in determining which size will work best. The recommended size charts provided by manufacturers are just that - recommendations."
As another data point and a bit more mathmatical approach, with a bit of bro-science, is Lee Likes Bikes and his RAD measurement....quantifying bike fit based on performance and human dimensions. It generally puts guys on bike a size (or two) smaller than manuf recommend.
Long is good, longer is better, but longer and balanced is best.
That would make a good article and if enough people start taking and writing about it more brands will make the effort. When that happens Jack will get off that size small and on to something that fits him.
Personally I’m finding the best balanced ratio to be different for full 29er and mx wheel, with the mx wheel bike needing a comparably longer rear centre.
All I'm saying is six seconds over a two minute track.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5cVPy2NbL4
Joking though. Or maybe not. I feel like in a way, the Donut really made a point
I’ve done this, on a limited scale, with two bikes. Really interesting but also really tricky to isolate for just the fc/rc ratios. It would be incredibly hard to get an article like this to start up to any scrutiny. Said said for personal info it unfortunately made deciding on which bike to go for pretty easy.
I found that times tend to converge when on tracks that are well known. You find a way to ride each bike just about as fast as the other. Things get more interesting on unknown tracks especially if grip is limited. Here the bike with a smaller ratio - comparatively longer rc- becomes easier to change lines and improvise on.
I hadn’t considered it before but safety was the biggest bonus for the smaller ratio bike. Far more forgiving on mistakes as it was easier to keep the front from getting away.
"What about *every* talented rider sizing down."
1) they don't all size down. eg Yoann Barelli. Or even Jack Moir when he's not racing EWS specifically. (see below). Trail, preference, goals etc..
2) Like most people I am neither talented nor am I racing.
flowmountainbike.com/features/timed-runs-jack-moir
Moir will spend the vast majority of his racing season aboard the Strive, but standing six-foot-one-inches tall, he has opted to size down to a large frame from an XL.
“With downhill, I would say ‘get me on the biggest bike you’ve got’ because you’re going so fast, and you just want stability,” says Moir. “But it’s (enduro) just a different style of riding.”
“An extra-large fit me a bit better. But, the tracks are so tight and technical, an extra-large is a big bike to try to turn around and get through that janky stuff, so I just learned to ride the large,” he says. “
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL07msXY6eo
I actually own both sizes that I am between and I have ridden several bikes in both so no need for me to size down to update my opinion. I currently have the shorter size in my short travel trail bike, which matches the intent well. It's fun and poppy. And the larger size for my longer travel bike which is great for stuff I find scary stuff and bike park days. If I were buying an exclusive bike for downhill/shuttle I would go even bigger.
Do you know for certain you'd be faster on a shorter bike on a downhill double diamond you have dialed? Have you tried it? Yoann and Jack don't think so, neither do I and there's a large spectrum of talent between us.
I'm wondering if you have something to back up your impression besides looking at EWS riders' specific enduro racing strategy or that one guy in Colorado's website about RAD? These are the arguments usually thrown around and I don't find either particularly compelling. But I accept that different people will have different preferences.
'A 10mm increase in chainstay length (which would make it one of the longest on the market) would only increase the pressure on the front wheel by 1.5%. In order to get a significant increase in front-wheel traction, you need a much more extreme change in the rear centre than what's offered by most bikes with size-specific chainstays.'
What do you think would be a noticeable increase in chainstay length without making the bike unrideable?
Somewhere around the area where chainstay length matches reach?
ep1.pinkbike.org/p5pb20030892/p5pb20030892.jpg
However, knowing that there is little time difference when you are inbetween sizes (perhaps obvious with hindsight), really does open up the question about what would happen on an extreme sizes, M and XXL.
If you're ever inclined to repeat this work, then testing the full size range, from small, would be really interesting science.
I'm 6' and regularly see Jack at races. He's at least 6'3"
Look at him here compared to Neko who is 6'2"
That would provide some interesting data.
These Tall Tales can really grow given time.
Not unlike on a motorcycle sliding your forks up/ down just a couple of millimeters makes a tremendous difference when at the limit.
Would love to see more companies try out longer chian stays to get more weight on the front wheel.
www.pinkbike.com/news/review-the-2022-canyon-strive-is-longer-slacker-shapeshifter.html
But yes, “modern” geometry is getting a little ridiculous.
As soon as I got hold of the bike, I broke out the tape measure to check Canyon's numbers. This is something I always do, and usually, it just confirms what I already knew. But this time it revealed some important differences. The chainstay on my bike measures 442 mm, and the wheelbase measures 1,312 mm in the neutral headset position - both longer than claimed.
one huge thing about short bikes is that your longitudinal balance has to be spot on at all times and most riders don't seem to understand how that works...
If it were truly all about speed, you'd think they'd barely move any of those bikes and only be selling, respectively, Enduros, Megatowers, Process X, and Spires.
Enduro racing has indeed spawned a marketing and hype wave, and there are probably a lot of folks who've sort of gotten sucked into that and are finding themselves overbiked. But every place I go ride, I seem to see way more trail/all mountain bikes than race-worthy enduro sleds.
Hi
did you just put a 650 B in the back and put the shock in high position, or you have done something with headangle and cranks? Would be nice to know. Thank you!
Canfield Riot (L)
WB 1173mm
CS 414mm
HA 66.5
Devinci Atlas (L)
WB 1130mm
CS 430mm
HA 68.5 (140 fork)
Kinda feel like EWS racing/riding has skewed the perspective a bit. Many of us do not have the luxury of easy dirt roads or uplifts.
-Hats off to Canyon for pushing geo and making the front centres a decent length.
-However, by leaving the rear centre really short (435) and especially for all lengths, it means that only one of these FC lengths will actually maybe feel good, and you have to hope you're the right height for that one (I'd say probably the small).
-Cornering grip, stability, comfort when descending is determined in part by where the riders' COG sits between the two axles. On both the L and XL here, it will be way too far back, causing lack of grip on the front wheel. The short CS will also make the rear wheel skip out easier than if it was an adequate length, giving an overall feeling of instability. It will climb worse with the slack SA and short rear end combo.
Unfortunately manufacturers have been pushing short CS for years and the PB commenters have decided that a bike must have short CS to be playful. The harsh reality is that if you can't manual a bike with 450 CS, you can't manual any bike. You can learn to manual or bunny hop a bike with any CS length within reason. Instead what we have is a bunch of bikes coming out with long FC, short RC. The bike feels neither playful or fast, just sketchy and cumbersome to get around corners. I would bet that most riders who have their perfect 'reach' number (whether it's short or long) have stumbled across their best FC/RC ratio that they've ridden to date.
There is no one measurement to rule them all here - it's a complex equation of multiple ones in relation to rider size.
No one will do it through!
Thank god I use it for Engineering or I'd be having similar arguments like this with my colleagues!
"Would the conclusion be different if the rear-centre grew in proportion to the front-centre, thereby giving the XL more front-wheel grip? (This would mean making the XL's chainstay 12 mm longer.)"
The Geo chart shows chainstay length of 435 across all sizes on the Canyon. I believe Canyon is offering size specific rear center lengths similar to MOST (not all) bike companies who are offering sizing proportional rear centers by moving the pivot locations & mounting features on the main frame rather than producing unique (longer) rear chainstay components. I know it seems like a small distinction but if the chainstay is physically a longer part then the leverage on the shock would increase on larger sizes (not desired) whereas if the chainstay is the same component across all sizes just physically moved relative to the BB the rear center is longer but the leverage and suspension kinematics are identical across all sizes.
IIRC Pivot/Norco and most others are employing the latter approach (same chainstay, revised pivots) while Cannondale on the new Jekyll, for example, is using the former method (different chainstay components, same pivots relatively).
Thoughts?
Norco Range:
"In the case of the XL frame, you’ve got a 63° head angle, a 77.25° seat tube angle, and huge 447.5mm rear centre length. Norco achieves this change in rear centre length with specific link arms per frame size, so the suspension kinematics are slightly different on each size."
Pivot Firebird:
"All sizes of the firebird use the same rear triangle design. The adjustments to chainstay length and pivot location optimization for each size are all handled in the front triangle"
edit: I realized i misread canyon's approach with the strive in the article. I assumed they were utilizing Pivot's approach where, upon re-reading, I realized they're offering only a 435mm chainstay and identical rear-center across all sizes.
New Cannondale Jekyll Leverage Chart: ep1.pinkbike.org/p5pb20827502/p5pb20827502.jpg
Geo Chart: ep1.pinkbike.org/p5pb20800847/p5pb20800847.jpg
Small: 430mm CS length; 12.5% progression
Medium: 435mm CS; 16.5% progression
Large: 442mm CS; 18.4% progression
XL: 450mm CS; 20.2% progression
I rode the Occam on a track I know well, it felt light and playful but a bit smaller. Definitely easier to pick up or get over the back of. On repeated and bigger hits and at faster speed it just didn’t feel as confidence inspiring, like if I made a mistake I would definitely get bucked. For the average rider (me) I’d take the longer more stable bike, which is kinda what bike manufacturers tell us, except we all try to kid ourselves that we’re super fast and need the same gear as the pros…
On the other side of my town is city-built single track that is much more twisty and tight. My shorter bike(s) are faster there and easier to manage.
Horses for…
…shit I can’t remember the rest of the saying. Norses?
I’ll also add that head angle has a lot of influence on turning effort and straight line stability. A medium with a 63.5HA still takes more muscle than a steeper bike to turn. So the tighter and twistier the trails, the shorter and steeper the bike should probably be, and vice versa.
I'm 6'6" and used to ride an S5 Enduro. Now I'm on an S4 and absolutely loving it. I don't feel like I have lost any capability on the straights but definitely have gained some agility in the corners
510mm reach
1274mm wheelbase
I like the way it handles - seems well balanced and stable - but would like to try a large and see how a shorter wheelbase / reach compares.
For REF, the bike shop thought my height (6'0") was a good fit for an XL, and it's right where Norco suggests is the starting point for XL. Maybe because my wingspan is 6'2"?
I'd go for a Large next time, at least in Norco.
Almost anything else: shorter bike wins
No, I didn't watch the video
I comparison would be much more interesting with two bikes with similar front center : rear center proportions, because the main takeaway here was that you had to be more conscious of actively weighting the front, which is easily explained by the different weight distribution.
Also, I would like to see kee the cockpit as close as possible: BB-grips height and reach as close to identical as possible.
Maybe S5 and S5 Stumpy Evo? A Nikolai? Those are both adjustable.
Head angles of 63-64 kick ass = more wheelbase.
Seat angles of 78-79 kick ass = more reach required so your not so cramped in the TT
Chainstays a touch longer give better balance = more wheelbase
So if you want a super stable descending, comfortable ascending enduro bike, the end result is hella long WB and reach.
How about: try a different size and see what you prefer?
"As soon as I got hold of the bike, I broke out the tape measure to check Canyon's numbers. This is something I always do, and usually, it just confirms what I already knew. But this time it revealed some important differences. The chainstay on my bike measures 442 mm, and the wheelbase measures 1,312 mm in the neutral headset position - both longer than claimed."
But anyway, the major comment most people have it that riding smaller bikes, outside manufacturer recommendations, can be faster is certain situations. Then for the test you go pick one of the longest bikes out there.
Seb normally rides around XL 510mm reach bike or so...in this test he tested a Large with 505mm of reach (to heck with the size label). He also tested the 530mm reach size (a modern XXL for most manfuacturers) and found it to be lacking.
SO....Seb basically tested out if UPsizing his typical reach/WB on modern bikes is a good thing. No one wanted to know that, that's not what people are talking about when they talk about Remy, Rude, Moir, Florian etc. We wanted to know if DOWNsizing like a handleful of pros have done for a while, not just Jack, is an advantage and more fun. That test, with a handful of riders didn't happen unfortunately for some odd reason. Its almost like Canyon just wanted to send Seb both bikes that their chart says works...to help people better buy their bikes .
I'm 6-4 and find bikes with ~480mm reach the best as of late...of course longer legs vs torso can matter and other body dimensions.
RAD measurement (Lee Likes Bikes) is pretty much spot on for me which typically puts me on a Medium(ish).
Just back from Whistler, rode all the trails in the park, from green to double black, feeling much better on the shorter bike vs the 500mm+ bike I had previously - go figure.
I disagreee. They may label the size ‘XS’ , but when you look at actual stack and reach, they are gigantic.
Mullet does not help with this. Instead, small bikes with big travel need to go full 27.5 (which some brands do).
After all, front wheel height+fork travel + minimal head tube = a certain minimum stack height.
As if modern mountainbiking hadn't hugely benefited from the geometry trend of the last 7-8 years.
That LeeLikesBikes guy would put me on 840's!