Video: Are Longer Bikes Really Faster?

Jul 12, 2022 at 6:01
by Seb Stott  

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.


  • 160 7
 This chart is trying to kill me:
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?
  • 51 0
 #authentic #handmade
  • 14 0
 Edward Tufte would not approve
  • 35 0
 XL = Extra Large
XI = 11 (as in "it goes to 11")
  • 6 0
 @GZMS: #artisanal...
  • 6 0
 small batch, patina, all that.
  • 3 1
 What’s the wheel base on the Grim Donut?
  • 4 0
 hopefully the colons stayed where they were lol
  • 1 0
 Outside can you enforce using "Grammarly" or any other soft?
  • 7 0
 This is a finely crafted, passive aggressive, retaliation for the crap the tech editors absorb from the comments section. Subtle yet brutal. Well played Seb.
  • 2 0
 @chacou: yeah, William Sealy Gosset would be none too happy either.
  • 2 0
 Also, 3 usable laps on the L/7L and 1 (!) on the XL/Xl?
  • 1 0
 @TheLongMan: nope, had to get mine removed back in January!
  • 1 0
 @chacou: wow, a tufte ref in a PB thread. Who’d’ve thunk it?
  • 1 0
 @Mac1987: Surely not a coincidence
  • 1 0
 @me2menow: maybe a coincidence, but "one is none" is a popular phrase when talking about observations for a reason.
  • 41 2
 Where's the medium's lap time?
  • 52 5
 I'd bet $50 he'd be faster on a medium.
  • 10 4
 @plustiresaintdead: That's what I'm talking about! How can you tell if a longer bike is faster if you also don't test if the smaller bike isn't just as fast. I'll bet the rider fits a medium according to the manufacturer, and has already sized up the large...
  • 25 29
flag mikekazimer Mod (Jul 14, 2022 at 9:26) (Below Threshold)
 @dan23dan23, Seb's 6'3" tall - he definitely doesn't fit a medium according to the manufacturer.
  • 95 8
 @mikekazimer: tell that to Jack Moir
  • 23 1
 @mikekazimer: Yeah but this whole test is around Manufacturers marketing sizing that isn't exactly ideal. Look at the Nicolai bike. The idea is, whats the ideal size? Not what manufacturer's recommend.
  • 10 28
flag lurkeris (Jul 14, 2022 at 9:34) (Below Threshold)
 @mikekazimer: Jack Moir is 6'3" tall and he is riding size small. Screw the manufacturer and ride the medium & small.

Jack is riding the fastest and most physically demanding tracks on the world on small.
  • 97 17
 @lurkeris, I wouldn't recommend making bike sizing choices based on what one ridiculously talented racer is riding.
  • 17 2
 @mikekazimer: if a medium were appropriate for someone at 6’ 3”, then I at just over 5’ 10” who rides a large should try an xs and see which is faster…maybe bust out a bmx bike while I’m at it
  • 24 0
 @mikekazimer: just for the sake of the video though a medium would have been funny/cool/shocking to see
  • 9 8
 @mikekazimer: What about *every* talented rider sizing down. Not to mention the shortest bikes consistently going fastest in the field tests.
  • 11 0
 @mikekazimer: Might have been a more interesting test to "size down" to a M and "size up" to an XL - manufacturer sizing charts be damned.
  • 22 1
 @HVrider @lukeris

Jack Moir is 6'1". He only looks really tall compared the average sized pro enduro rider - they are mostly midgets
  • 49 6
 @plustiresaintdead, I don't have a dog in this fight - at the end of the day it's personal preference. Not every rider is sizing down, but you're right, some of them are choosing the smaller size when they're in between sizes. Terrain and rider height / body proportions all come into play, and there's not one concrete 'right' answer.

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.
  • 23 0
 @lurkeris: Jack said himself he sizes down for twisty ews stages but prefers a bigger bike for regular trail riding at home
  • 14 0
 @mikekazimer: maybe he’s riding a medium cause all other sizes aren’t available until next year
  • 5 15
flag 14pslope (Jul 14, 2022 at 10:03) (Below Threshold)
 @mikekazimer: sometimes the truth becomes trendy
  • 22 2
 @lurkeris: Jack Moir is not 6'3" stop repeating this myth for the millionth time.
  • 12 15
 @mikekazimer: wut? People have been talking about bikes being pretty long for a couple of years. Hell Enduro-Mag did a decent bro-science test of this...a couple of years ago and also said that the shorter pro bikes were a bit faster (for themselves aka regular riders) but more importantly...more fun! On an actual EWS course.

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:
  • 58 8
 @mikekazimer: I think some riders are sizing down because the balance of the bikes is getting way out of proportion and I've never seen any brands testing this. Currently, most brands are making the front end fashionably longer and the rear fashionably shorter and they say it's great but never provide any data or test methodology.

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?
  • 8 6
 @mikekazimer: One ridiculously talented racer that has full support from Canyon Engineer to make any change to the bike he want. (rear triangles, rockers and spacers under the head tube) Betting its no ordinary small.
  • 15 2
 @astonmtb: First of all, we all need more Aston. Your perspectives are interesting and ridden out well.

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. 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.
  • 19 1
 @astonmtb, good point. A long reach with short chainstays can certainly be trickier to ride compared to one with more balanced proportions. I'm glad some companies are starting to do size-specific chainstay lengths, but there's definitely room for more experimentation in that area.
  • 5 0
 @astonmtb: Maybe longer is faster.. but I sure as hell know unbalanced bikes are slower and more work to ride.
  • 8 0
 @astonmtb: THANK YOU!!! I’ve literally been commenting almost exactly what you are saying every single time this debate gets brought up and I get tossed in the fire. Not enough people understand how well a balanced bike rides and cry about the whole oh it won’t be playful without ever trying it either. I’ve frankenbiked a bike recently to achieve as much balance as possible like you did and it’s easily the best cornering and overall best riding bike I’ve ever been on. It’s an incredible thing! The problem is definitely exaggerated for us tall folks on XLs and XXLs. So much room for improvement with balance.

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
  • 2 0
 @mikekazimer: give the people what they want!
  • 1 0
 @bananowy: so how tall is Stacia of Hawkwind? Is she really 6`2" as Lemmy told in that interview??
  • 4 16
flag TheRamma (Jul 14, 2022 at 11:05) (Below Threshold)
 double post! or not... No idea what's happening.

"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
  • 3 0
 @stormracing: Its tough to do that without laying out cash tho or finding a manufacturer that's OK with sending you bikes and then telling the world that their sizing is wrong for decent amount of people. Hence this test...Canyon's chart tells Seb he should be on a L or XL. So they send him one of each to test out to help sell their bikes. The medium doesn't come into the equation because its not on their chart or helping them in anyway. If anything it hurts them by saying they sized their bikes poorly and now if you want a proper ride, then you are stuck on the medium but with a too short TTL. That's why this stuff doesn't happen with marketing sites like PB. Maybes its unfair for us to ask for that too. It should come from someone like Aston.
  • 4 1
 @TheRamma: hahah thank goodness I never put those two words next to each other in quote to partake in this echo chamber on PB but I guess it’s kinda implied.. haha
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
  • 4 1
 @stormracing: nah, I wasn't insulted, or trying to insult you. I am a bit frustrated with PB, because their reviews rarely put their preferences in a relatable context to their body types (Alicia Leggett did on one of the video reviews recently, shout out for that). Instead, they tend to talk about things in broad-sounding absolutes. "STA is too slack! Chainstays are too short for my seated peddling position!" It's lead to a lot of people repeating it online, without any disclaimer.

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.
  • 2 1
 @cxfahrer: asking the important questions here... I wish she was but I found other sources say 5'8". Shall we just call blasphemy to that and go with Lemmy's word as gospel?
  • 1 0
 @Svinyard: 100% agree!
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.
  • 1 0
 @TheRamma: yeah, unfortunately I believe it’s by design. The less specific they are, the less questioning people have when getting hung up on specifics being shared. Although frustrating, I think it’s easier for them to be vague because then everyone is going off loose assumptions rather than specific details and over analyzing.
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)
  • 4 0
 @mikekazimer: Also when people look at Jack Moir’s choice of size, they don’t consider the affect the smaller size is going to have on the uphill pedal. Jack is running for points, but when you spend all day on the bike also going uphill on a too small bike, it is going to kill your back. I think those are completely two different worlds (competitions and casual riding).
  • 6 0
 @lurkeris: I am 6'3 (191cm) and talked to him on flat ground face to face, he is at least 2 inches shorter than me
  • 2 0
 @TheRamma: FYI in his original review of this bike Seb measured the actual CS length on the Strive to be 442mm not claimed 435mm

"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."
  • 2 0
 @mikekazimer: Seb would totally ‘fit’ on a 480mm reach bike with +5mm cups. No problem. Thousands of people have done and still do.
At a minimum, it is a fair point that it would have been interesting for the test.
  • 1 0
 @stormracing: what's your franken-bike story? I wont take it as gospel, just curious to see what kind of bike/sizing you started with and what sort of trial and error process you went through
  • 2 0
 @mikekazimer: The same could be said of media editors who have been pushing a longer is better agenda for longer than I can remember
  • 2 0
 @loudv8noises: yea, Seb, and the other PB writers, all write things worth reading. That's why when they commit the same mistakes over and over again (making the personal seem universal), it's frustrating. If they wrote shitty articles, I wouldn't even bother to read them.
  • 8 0
 @tcmtnbikr, I don't think any of the current PB editors have a 'longer is better' agenda. Yes, there was a time when some bikes were what I'd consider to be too short, but now we've arrived at a place where reach numbers seem to have settled into a sweet spot. There will always be companies that go a little too far, or not far enough, which is why we review so many different bikes, in order to go over the pros and cons of each model.
  • 3 1
 @mikekazimer: on more than one occasion you have ignored manufactures size recommendations and attempted to justify choosing your preferred reach when questioned on this in the comments. Kona process 153 field test review for example

"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."
  • 7 2
 @thisc*nt, I still stand by those words. The world's not going to end if you deviate from what a manufacturer recommends as far as sizing goes.
  • 5 1
 @mikekazimer: I dont treat the size guides as gospel at all. You're the one who pointed out that Seb definitely doesn't fit a medium in the manufactures recommendations to suggest that adding a medium frame to the test wouldn't be relevant. You're straddling the fence a bit there.
  • 5 1
 @Svinyard: I agree.

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.
  • 1 0
 @thisc*nt: Yeah, true that. It was the same for that Ghost Riot they reviewed in last year's field test. It was clearly a size too small for the both of them and also had a springrate that was too soft.
  • 3 2
 @astonmtb: This man gets it. Thanks for spreading the good word, Paul!

Long is good, longer is better, but longer and balanced is best.
  • 1 0
 @mikekazimer: That's cool, I made that comment clearly as a PB troll... But given the rider's height it would be interesting to see what his times would be on a bike that we all agree is TOO SMALL for him. just to see the relative time differences.
  • 1 0
 @Muscovir: where does slightly shorter but balanced fall into this?
  • 1 0
 @mikekazimer: for enduro (maybe DH but I’m not sure there) the riders towards the pointy end of the field look to be converging on a front/rear centre ratio. I can only think of one brand keeping this ratio constant between sizes.

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.
  • 2 0
 @Svinyard: What are you on about?

All I'm saying is six seconds over a two minute track.

Joking though. Or maybe not. I feel like in a way, the Donut really made a point Wink
  • 1 0
 @Svinyard: “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’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.
  • 1 0
 @RadBartTaylor: Slightly shorter as in "slightly shorter but in relation to modern geometry" or slighty shorter as in "sizing straight outta 2015"?
  • 1 0
 @Muscovir: relative to your long and longer....
  • 2 0
 @plustiresaintdead: I'd actually hold that bet and say that he'd be consistently faster on the Large than on the Medium.
  • 7 0
"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.

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. “
  • 1 0
 @Muscovir: You can hold me to that if we get another test between the two! Or similarly sized bikes.
  • 2 0
 @jdejace: Exactly you're not going fast and definitely losing time in the corners over the straights. You should probably size down too.
  • 1 2
 @ponyboy24: Jack isn't 6'1". He's proper tall.
  • 5 0
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.
  • 1 0
 @astonmtb: 495 chainstays?! What bike is this?
  • 3 0
 @JamesR2026: He is 6'1". He has confirmed this himself on many occasions.
  • 1 0
 @astonmtb: Seb wrote in his review of the Strive that
'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?
  • 1 0
 I think reviewer outfit like pb should have a small, med and large sized reviewer for respective bike sizes of the same model. FC to RC ratios change on each different size which will make the amazing bike in large feel very different in small or med. Im stuck in the smaller bracket and my nice is 430 reach and 430 chainstays. This feels spot on for me at 5ft6.
  • 1 0
 ^ Sorry I meant reach to chainstays ratio.
  • 2 0
 @mikekazimer: Here's Seb on his beloved 24/7 jump bike that he used to ride trails on. Reach must be around 400mm. I'm sure he could fold himself on to a medium Canyon even if his back is a decade older Wink
  • 1 1
 Definitely should have tested medium. In pinkbike's defence, particularly as this is great content regardless, I guess they didn't expect both bikes to post the same time.
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.
  • 1 3
 @ThinkTank45: he said he doesn't know how tall he is in feet and inches in what I've seen.
I'm 6' and regularly see Jack at races. He's at least 6'3"
  • 2 0
 @JamesR2026: Neko is just under 6 feet tall as far as I know
  • 3 0
 @plustiresaintdead: Since the Strive doesn't have proportioned chain stay lengths, him going faster on a M (if that were to occur) is just as likely to be indicative of better chassis balance due to the short chain stays playing better with the shorter Reach.
  • 1 0
 @jimmythehat: That's pretty telling.
  • 2 0
 @astonmtb: This x 1000.
  • 2 0
 @mikekazimer: It would be cool if PB timed a stock SJ Evo S4, then slapped the longer S5/ 6 chainstays on the S4 and timed it again.
That would provide some interesting data.
  • 2 0
 @jdejace: What's funny is that on another forum people are claiming that Moir is riding a size Small Strive & that he is 6'3" tall!
These Tall Tales can really grow given time.
  • 1 0
 @ThinkTank45: The math makes it seem minor, but in practice an additional 10mm of CS length is HUGE when it comes to bike feel.
Not unlike on a motorcycle sliding your forks up/ down just a couple of millimeters makes a tremendous difference when at the limit.
  • 1 0
 @mikekazimer: yep, the term “outlier”has a meaning for a reason.
  • 1 0
 @jdendy: as long as you have the background to pull it off
  • 1 0
 @ponyboy24: It's true, they are mostly jockey sized.
  • 18 0
 435mm chainstay is short on a 505 reach let alone 530. i'd think any stability speed gains on the XL are going to be offset in the corners trying to keep that thing from pushing everywhere.
  • 5 0
 agreed, I think this is more of a test on how short chainstays work with a long reach (fc/rc ratio) which overall conclusion is that it does not work well.

Would love to see more companies try out longer chian stays to get more weight on the front wheel.
  • 2 0
 @unusual-bread: They don't want to spend that margin on extra chainstay molds. If the marketing website/blogs etc can just continue say "longer is better!" this bike is great...then they don't have too. No one will care or know until someone finally puts it all to the test on a configurable bike where you can adjust the stays for a few different riders.
  • 7 0
 In Seb's review of the the bike, he said he measured the chainstay, and it was 442mm, I wonder why there is no mention of that:
  • 1 0
 @Svinyard: thing is, you don't even have to; just tweak the bb relationship to pivots on the front triangle (like norco does). a bit more CAD time. to offer a range of reaches spanning 3" paired with the same rear center is weak - especially with a premium product like this.
  • 19 0
 Shockingly consistent. Should put him as the rider/Stig for new bike field tests.
  • 17 0
 They should have a tester exactly my size test my bike and let me know if I would like it.
  • 15 0
 I'm 6'8 so I dont really care how you Maxxis Minions feel about longer bikes. I fully support this trend.
  • 4 0
 What are you riding at 6'8?!
  • 3 0
 This. I am 6'7".
  • 18 0
 @haen: tandem bikes.
  • 1 0
 @warmerdamj: Need a pic of that!
  • 2 0
 @haen: YT Capra 29 XXL with 60mm stem. There are some longer bikes out there, but this one was one of the longest in 2019 when I purchased. It is long enough to be stable, yet short enough to be playful. Bike has served me well from the flat terrain along the Gulf all the way to DH trails in Big Bear. Will be looking at the YT Tues 29 in Extra Long
  • 1 0
 @cxfahrer: what are you riding bruv? With a german flag, would expect a tricked out Nicolai and only Intend/Trickstuff components lol
  • 15 2
 Lol, it ain’t the bike…’s the rider.
But yes, “modern” geometry is getting a little ridiculous.
  • 2 4
 I'm looking to sell my Spur because i feel like its too long. Not necessarily too slack, but it doesn't have the get up and go. I think I am going to buy an Epic Evo.
  • 1 0
 @HB208: I’ve read some reviews that call the epic evo a little sluggish but coming from an enduro bike it makes me feel like a superhuman… mine sits around 25lb with a DH front tire and big brakes and the thing is unstoppable
  • 1 0
 @Chondog94 @HB208 the Epic Evo is far from sluggish... I can't personally speak to comparing it to a Spur, but switching to it from my Stumpjumper Evo is night and day - it's so fast and snappy while still being reasonably comfortable and composed on the downs.
  • 2 0
 @rowdyhonzo: agreed. I also have a stumpy evo, pretty unbeatable combo between the two bikes
  • 1 0
 @Chondog94: 25 lb isn't bad at all. I just don't love the Spur geo, I guess I cannot say bad things about a bike I have owned for a year and a half based on the downvotes.
  • 3 0
 @HB208: I haven’t ridden a spur but the comments section is pretty reliable round these parts, best to trust the votes
  • 1 0
 @Chondog94: Other people have had the same feedback, which is essentially that the front end is too long for the bike so it wanders. I might be between sizes or something but I am looking for a new bike in the next year or two I think. Its not a bad bike at all, it just has downsides that I don't want to live with long term.
  • 10 2
 I think there's little difference in the times since both bike are quite long. I would have like to have seen a medium vs large or XL. One big benefit of a longer bike is the feeling of going over the bars is greatly reduced. Therefore, I feel much more confident and relaxed. So many amateur riders spend a good deal of time riding tough downhill terrain feeling like they are just hanging on. Not a fun way to ride. Longer bikes reduce this and can make riding fun again.
  • 11 1
 To be fair, Seb is also quite long at 6'3" / 191cm tall. The scenario presented here mirrors the situation that riders who are between sizes would find themselves in - there can be pros and cons to going with either size, which is what Seb was demonstrating. In the end, it's personal preference, although longer bikes can be more difficult to handle at slower speeds and on tighter trails.
  • 1 0
 @mikekazimer: For sure. I guess I just want to get all my friends off their 2019 medium Giant Reigns with 1217mm wheelbases. Is that an XS these days or XXS?
  • 7 3
 @mikekazimer: All of these folks saying he should try a medium... I'm also 6'3" and have ridden my wifes M a couple times. It's terrifying to be on a bike that small when you're that big.
  • 2 0
 I think it's because the trail did not favour any particular length. For sure there are trails better suited to longer and better suited to shorter bikes. But if you think a while, you have two sizes within 35mm, I would love to see a methematical analysis what's the effective difference in turn radius caused by this ... And also what is the difference in weight distribution. Isn't it like 2.5% longer? Certainly you need a very special circumstances for this 2.5% to play any meaningful role.
  • 1 0
 True that on longer means bigger battery with overall geo suffering some from prospective increase sizing to accommodate. Trek Rail comes to mind with this. My 20’ Rail large fits me like a glove at 5’10”, 32-33” inseam, whereas 22’ Rail large are too long in comparison and medium a bit too short. All manufacturers should have M/L sizing for the average male (5’10”)
  • 8 0
 @mikekazimer: Seb is long - but even more so, he's a freaking gazelle (37" inseam at 6'3") rather than an ape (with stubby legs and a long torso). With a 435mm chainstay, both these bikes are really long in the front triangle by comparison. That's a geometry that generally works for apes, and not at all for gazelles (as they get way too far out over the rear given their long femurs if they're well balanced over the crank). Case in point - I'm 6'1" with a stubby 32" inseam and a rather simian build. I get along great with Konas (super short chainstays with long front triangles), whereas my gazelle-y friends hate those. That disconnect between Seb's body's geometry and the bike's would color this more than the L vs XL thing.
  • 1 0
 @mikekazimer: I am also 6'3, but have inseam of 34, so my centre of gravity is in different spot than Seb's despite almost the same weight, so that bike would feel different for me. Too many variables
  • 1 0
 @g-42: FYI in his original review of this bike Seb measured the chainstay of the strive at 442mm not claimed 435mm.

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.
  • 1 1
 This is the biggest thing about long bikes for many riders these days; a long bike makes bad body position and balance closer to acceptable and can same riders from themselves when things get hairy.

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...
  • 2 0
 @Buffsfan3493: This Medium Strive has a 480mm reach and a 1270mm wheelbase. Is your wife's Medium that long?
  • 10 1
 Maybe not everyone is looking to be faster. Not all bikes are designed to be raced.... and no, I didn't watch the video. Just wanted to get my snarky comment in first.
  • 3 0
 at least you're honest! and you're right -- i went mullet on my 2021 Spec. Enduro because while blazing fast, the full 29 on a bike that long just didnt handle the way I wanted it to. And my roommate, who worked for Specialized, about lost his mind. The pursuit of speed (and how its marketed) has perhaps gone too far. Like, god forbid I have more fun at mortal-person speeds or want to manual a bit here and there...nope! SPEED.
  • 3 2
 @peterman1234: Specialized is selling the crap out of the Status - a bike very much NOT aimed at speed but at playfulness. Similarly, Santa Cruz is selling a ton of 5010s and Hightowers. Kona's Process 134 is a huge seller for them. Transition's Scout and Sentinel are probably right up there at the top of their sales numbers.

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.
  • 1 0

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!
  • 4 0
 Two of the most fun bikes I have ever owned, not fast in a straight line but fast and SO MUCH fun on tight twisty trails.

Canfield Riot (L)
WB 1173mm
CS 414mm
HA 66.5

Devinci Atlas (L)
WB 1130mm
CS 430mm
HA 68.5 (140 fork)
  • 5 0
 I say let’s test it like Galileo. Take the two bikes to the top of the hill and let them go and see which one crosses the bottom of the hill first. Canyon you can provide the bikes.
  • 4 0
 Would love to see this video include techy climbing. A lot of us have to choose a bike based on its climbing abilities as well.

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.
  • 7 0
 A longer bike would cross the finish line before a shorter bike thereby making it a faster bike. Change my mind.
  • 7 0
 ...but also starts further back
  • 4 0
 @joostd: That just blew my mind
  • 5 0
 My bikes are all custom made and delivered and set-up directly for me at my dental practice. This article is only for the destitute.
  • 3 0
 The thing that is missed here which is the most important part of the correct geometry for a bike is the rear centre length and more importantly the ratio of front centre to rear centre.

-Hats off to Canyon for pushing geo and making the front centres a decent length.
-However, by leaving the rear centre really short (435) and especially for all lengths, it means that only one of these FC lengths will actually maybe feel good, and you have to hope you're the right height for that one (I'd say probably the small).
-Cornering grip, stability, comfort when descending is determined in part by where the riders' COG sits between the two axles. On both the L and XL here, it will be way too far back, causing lack of grip on the front wheel. The short CS will also make the rear wheel skip out easier than if it was an adequate length, giving an overall feeling of instability. It will climb worse with the slack SA and short rear end combo.

Unfortunately manufacturers have been pushing short CS for years and the PB commenters have decided that a bike must have short CS to be playful. The harsh reality is that if you can't manual a bike with 450 CS, you can't manual any bike. You can learn to manual or bunny hop a bike with any CS length within reason. Instead what we have is a bunch of bikes coming out with long FC, short RC. The bike feels neither playful or fast, just sketchy and cumbersome to get around corners. I would bet that most riders who have their perfect 'reach' number (whether it's short or long) have stumbled across their best FC/RC ratio that they've ridden to date.
  • 2 0
 Surely the 2 biggest variables will be 1. The nature of the trail tight and tech v open and flow 2. The skill of the rider and their ability to overcome the disadvantages of the different size frames and exploit the advantage
  • 4 0
 This test isn't good enough for an analytical guy like Seb. He needed a larger sample size like other Mags have done. At least a few buddies.
  • 3 0
 I feel like two bikes of the same size but with different lengths would have been a more accurate test. Sure, if one bike fits your poorly than it might be slower. Seems like this test was more about fit rather than geo.
  • 2 0
 @seb-stott Not to get too technical but this is is not 100% correct yes?

"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).

  • 1 0
 To expand on this with examples of each approach to size specific chainstay/rear centers:

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.
  • 3 0
 For reference:

New Cannondale Jekyll Leverage Chart:
Geo Chart:

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
  • 2 0
 My 2p/2cents as a full on punter. I ride a YT Jeffsy, and recently rode my friends Orbea Occam, both 29r, both size L which on paper are both correct for my 5 foot 10. Geo wise they’re not too far apart.

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…
  • 2 0
 I ride in an area with lots of converted mining roads. That means long, chunky, straight stretches. The longer bike definitely is objectively faster there and feels safer at high speeds.

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.
  • 2 0
 Obviously, the fastest size of bike is the size that you have been training on the past few months. IMHO, a decent scientific study design to test for this question is to take a few hundred riders, put one third of them on bikes that are shorter than they are used to, one third on bikes that are longer than they are used to, and leave the rest on their current size. Test them consistently every week for a few months on different tracks. Analyze the trends over time for each group and look for statistically significant differences. Seb riding two sizes for one afternoon makes for nice post ride chat over beer but it proves jack sh!t.
  • 2 0
 "it's easier to ride a small bike fast on straights than it is to corner on a long bike" -Jack Moir

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
  • 2 0
 I've said it before and I'll say it again, you can't use a "one factor at a time" testing approach. This needs a proper Design of Experiments methodology to see the interactions between reach, chainstay length, head angle, seat angle, stack, stem length, offset, bar width, bar sweep, leg length, arm length, etc.

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!
  • 1 1
 It’s a free internet mountain biking website you can’t expect them to run a full DOE lol.
  • 3 0
 505 vs 530mm reach. Now that's a long bike. Most companies seem to have an xl at 515 and a large at 490ish. Would have been cool to see the difference between the two.
  • 1 0
 In modern bikes, I only have experience with a longer XL Norco Optic:

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.
  • 4 1
 Someone riding down something mostly straight that's out of their comfort zone: long bike wins

Almost anything else: shorter bike wins

No, I didn't watch the video
  • 1 0
 Think everyone needs to remember that the L vs XL here is on the Strive that they just changed where the XL is more like an XXL from other brands that make one. I mean 505mm reach was pretty much XL on every other brand until recently. So he's more comparing an XL vs XXL than an L vs XL. I'm 189cm and sized down to a 485mm reach than a 505mm reach and always wondered if I did the right thing however have to say in the squirrely black tech bits it certainly does make it more nimble
  • 1 0
 Yes @Seb Stott,
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.
  • 5 1
 To me 1240 to 50 is my sweet spot on a large
  • 3 2
 I wonder if humans are actually built differently? Like, could one 6'3" person have different arm/torso/shoulder/leg measurements than another?

How about: try a different size and see what you prefer?
  • 4 0
 I run a M/L size frame... sorted!
  • 1 0
 Only a wise man from ScotchLANNNND would say this (thumbs up)
  • 2 0
 Yada, comparable dimensions to the author, I'd like to know if he found pants long enough while not needing belt + suspenders.
  • 3 0
 I'm waiting for GMBN's new video, "Longer is always better, until the industry says otherwise".
  • 4 1
 I'm 6' 2" & I can't stand the current super long bikes. Feels like you getting "in" the bike not "on" it.
  • 2 0
 Same. I had a 510mm reach xl bike for a season and much prefer my 485 L bike now-a-days. Crazy thing is I sold it to a kid who was prob around 5'10". Seemed like being stretch out took the playfulness out of it.
  • 3 0
 Pinkbike has been telling us forever that long, low, and slack is the "modern geometry" necessary for a great bike.
  • 1 0
 Would the conclusions be different if the large wasn't the same reach number that you normally ride? If you rode the xl for a month, would you get used to it and the large might then feel a bit small?
  • 2 0
 So, ride other tracks until there’s a verifiable difference in times and why that would be.
  • 4 2
 Anyone else SICK no pun of modern geo. I like my bikes to handle nice n tight poppy not like an 8 wheeler podraggy shite
  • 1 0
 What's going on with the discrepancy in chainstay length here? The charts all list the CS as 435, but in the video you mention they measure out at 442?
  • 3 0
 Yes it's odd it wasn't mentioned in this article but if you go back to Seb's original review of the strive he says this:

"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."
  • 3 0
 pick a bike size and be a dick about it
  • 2 0
 I think you would be faster on a medium on that track. Do 100 runs on each size a week apart and report back.
  • 2 0
 So the take away of this is: Long is good but long and balanced is even better.
  • 1 0
 Great article. I like that you poked holes in your own experiment before posting. Great insights and I think more tests should stem from this initial experiment.
  • 2 4
 I look at ett more now than reach..that medium might be a 480 reach but that ett is ml slash has a longer top tube than that and it still feels cramped..if anything these days I've found you need to size up to be comfortable
  • 4 0
 Do you need to be aero when seated?
  • 1 0
 Yes there's definitely the advantage to the steeper SA giving riders that might be on the cusp able to get a bigger bike without being too stretched out. Steeper seat tubes have really been a blessing to those of us with spider legs.
  • 2 0
 It probably depends on what terrain you're on.
  • 8 8
 Waste of time. This test is being run based on Canyon's absurd new sizing chart. Put him on a medium which he would fit on based on most other manufacturer geo charts.
  • 6 3
 Seb's 6'3" - I don't think there are any manufacturers out there that would suggest he be on a bike with a 480mm reach. Seb typically rides a size XL or XXL depending on the company.
  • 4 3
 @mikekazimer: Transition goes up to 6'3" for large if I'm reading this right. A large Spire has the same reach as a new medium Strive.

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.
  • 4 2
 @mikekazimer: Friend is 6'2 and rides an S4 Enduro, I think seb at 6'3 should give the medium a shot.
  • 7 2
 @mikekazimer: Yeah but manufacturers have gotten it wrong forever, hence why geo is still changing significantly (unit recently perhaps). So lets get away from the "what manufacturers" recommend.

Seb normally rides around XL 510mm reach bike or 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 help people better buy their bikes Wink .
  • 6 1
 @mikekazimer: I think people are questioning if the manuf are suggesting the right bikes for people.

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.
  • 1 0
 you can make up for "stability" of a long bike with skill, so yeah its the rider and not the bike
  • 6 6
 So......Seb does yet another psuedo-scientific test with a small sample size (himself) and gets ambiguous/inconclusive results? Great job buddy, keep up the good work!
  • 2 1
 Why are they showing us this? Tell it to the manufacturers - not many of us can build our own frames to taste.
  • 1 0
 5'8", 400mm reach on an old v10. can both be bunny hopped 2 feet and is fast and stable. NOOBZ!
  • 1 0
 Come back next time when we test if square wheels roll faster than round ones.
  • 2 3
 Longer bikes are.... Longer. More stable feeling... Because you are going slower in that barge. Wait until we get into steeper head angles are faster than crazy slack ones
  • 2 0
 This bike is massive.
  • 1 0
 Long fast . Short fun. I ride for fun.
  • 1 0
 I feel like we need to know Seb's wingspan as well as his height...
  • 1 0
 Definitely, especially since 37" inseam seems pretty long for 6'3". I'm 6'8" with 37" inseam and I would be considering the large too if I had 5" less torso!
  • 4 5
 Maybe we don't have a 6'3" person run this test? What about the smaller riders that have completely gotten sized out?
  • 5 1
 Many companies have XS frame sizes in their lineups now - I don't think too many people have actually been 'sized out'. And the addition of mixed wheel options helps out smaller riders too, since there's less tire buzz to deal with on longer travel bikes.
  • 2 0
 6-3 is great, we just needed a few other riders know, like a proper test of anything. Sample size and all that.
  • 1 0
 Great idea, test any bike in any size with rider sized from 5'1" to 6'7", and mix all sizes.
  • 2 0
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.
  • 1 0
 29" wheels is what really sized people out
  • 5 4
 Bad test, waste of time.
  • 5 1
 unfortunately true. Not even close to the test that Enduro-Mag did, which wasn't perfect but at least had more riders, a pro EWS course and actual pro bikes.
  • 2 1
 @Svinyard: Yeah but most of us dont have access to ride pro EWS courses or similar trails.
  • 1 1
 Slammed forward saddle with a ~77 STA along with a 35mm stem.
  • 9 11
 2 bikes ridden at the same speed means that the longer bike will always win
  • 5 0
  • 2 2
 @GZMS: Remove the human element. We are asking "which BIKE is faster?" not Which bike am I faster on. thus, set the speed to equal and find out which BIKE is faster. the longer one
  • 4 0
 If they are ridden at the same speed they would be exactly the same.
  • 2 4
 @HB208: Speed would be the same, but the longer bike would cross the line first
  • 4 0
 @PatrickTreeMiller: no they wouldn't, the longer one would just start with the rear wheel further back
  • 2 0
 @bkm303: human-less races start with the center of the bike.
  • 1 0
 @PatrickTreeMiller: citation needed.
  • 1 0
 @PatrickTreeMiller: in a humanless race, both bikes would DNF.
  • 1 1
  • 4 6
 Longer means bigger battery. #Ebike
  • 2 0
 True that on longer means bigger battery with overall geo suffering some from prospective increase sizing to accommodate. Trek Rail comes to mind with this. My 20’ Rail large fits me like a glove at 5’10”, 32-33” inseam, whereas 22’ Rail large are too long in comparison and medium a bit too short. All manufacturers should have M/L sizing for the average male (5’10”)
Below threshold threads are hidden

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

Join Pinkbike  Login
Copyright © 2000 - 2022. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.025248
Mobile Version of Website