I'm 185cm. I've sized up from a XC bike 18.5'' to a 21''. Big mistake. I miss terribly the agility of the old bike (and it was lighter too). I now ride with the constant feel that "I'm in the wrong bike". Too bad I now lack the 💰 re$ource$ to change bike again. Yes, I'm worse off financially than a few years ago, but also everything (parts, frames, bikes) in the bicycle world is sooo expensive it is kinda 😵 insane.
I’m not a kid anymore so safety on the downhills is a priority, especially after an injury. When in between sizes, I go for the larger size. More stable downhill and better at most climbs
I’m 6’ tall with very short legs(29” inseam) and I ride a Trek which has a size called M/L, it fits me perfectly on my Roscoe(a hardtail), when I bought a Fuel EX(full suspension) my guy at my LBS had me take a large home then gave me a M/L to try because he said the reach measurement was different between the two. He was right to have me try the large as it was a much better fit overall even though it felt a little big at first, after a year on that bike I tried to ride a buddy’s M/L Fuel EX and could barely ride it…for me the reach measurement is paramount.
The where I ride question is irrelevant for me personally because I ride so many different trails here in the States. Local trails are dry and rocky but the problem I have is our trails have changed over time. XC trails have become enduro trails. With the popularity of eBikes now they are still changing.
Good summary and good to hear some one recognise 'effective reach' due to bars. Bar width and angle has a considerable effect rather than the simplistic 'short stem = rad bike' marketing message so often used. I'm between M and L and have found that I enjoy the smaller size in general for the reasons you summarised (but I went up for my gravel bike).
Nice one - Wife and I both 5'9. I ride most of the steeps at FoD and Staunton which you boys will love and know. I can't ride a medium because I have really gangly arms and find it a lot harder to place my weight on a shorter frame (I need a 460mm or longer), however, my wife prefers a medium because she's longer in the torso. Both of us have 29" inseam, so a 155mm - 160mm Goldix crank allows us to spin up for our next runs. She prefers a mullet setup, whereas I've been 29" for the last decade. With my apetite for steep tech, I'm quite happy with my large Giga and Rail 5, whereas she prefers a medium Mega/Remedy. The next bike we'll be getting will be an SL ebike, so it's likely to be a medium so that she can ride tech more confidently, which she won't be able to do with the Rail (being too stretched and too heavy). Can ride a medium and whip in the air, but please, keep your mullet wheels.
Great Video! I think video's like this are worth their weight in gold.. When purchasing my first "Trail" bike last year, I was between sizes, and decided to size up as well. Happy pedaler here.
When I first started mountain biking back in 1992 the guy who sold me a bike told me that I need four inches of clearance with my feet on the ground LOL. I ended up in the long run with two inches of clearance in all my bikes after that.
I just switched from an aggressive XC hardtail large to a full suspension. Although the manufacturer charts put me in a Large, the shop recommended I size down. Could not be happier. I can move around on the bike and am more confident on the bike. Don't even use a dropper anymore.
Im glad you acknowledged the fact that reach is affecting by stack. Many people underestimate this. As im also a roadie, i do think they underestimate the effect of the wheelbase on decending ability, ive found longer wheelbases create horrible understeer.
I've had various bikes with a reach of between 430mm and 515mm over the last 12 years, I can say that the 595mm reach of my nukeproof mega 290 2023 is the best fitting bike for my 187cm height and 32" inseam
I’m between 5’10”-5’11” and often fall between size m and Lrg for most brands. My wingspan measures 6’2”, and I prioritize riding from a standing position and being able to be very dynamic on a bike (lots of bike body separation). I typically like a longer reach with a low stand over/short seat tube. So for me I would size up but need a stand over of around 700-740mm. And as I prefer leaning a bike to corner a hta around 64-65 degrees feels best. Any steeper than that and the bike tends to feel out of its league in every scenario. I’ve recently built up my own transition trans am from the frame up to get a nearly perfect fit and geo for my style.
I’m 5’11” and picked up my first full sus e-bike (GasGas). I usually ride a M/L with my hardtails, but opted for a longer chain stay and a bit more reach. Feels nice downhill, but it can also feel like a bit of a tank anywhere else. 😅
I am between a medium and a large. My last trail/enduro bike was a large Canyon Spectral in 27.5" which I fitted a 35mm stem to. My DH bike (27.5" Canyon Sender AL) is a large. I went with this because I like the stability of a longer wheelbase. I recently upgraded the Spectral for a medium Commencal Meta V5 and put a 50mm stem on. I downsized frame as I rode a mates Meta V4 in large and it was just felt too big. My medium V5 feels perfect. Still trying to get used to 29" wheels, but compared to the Spectral, I can feel the difference, just need to get back to a trail I have ridden the Spectral on previously to compare lap times.
I sized down once after buying a bike that was massively reduced in the sales. It handled terrible sketchy downhill, and climbing just put massive strain on my lower back. So I've taken fitment very seriously ever since. Get measured and get it right 👍
Pretty good overview Owen, given in pretty easy to understand way. I won't be buying a new bike anytime soon until the STA start to slacken back out, you just CAN'T engage your biggest muscle group when you're perched right over the BB like you are with the modern, stupid steep STA angles - if you want proof, look no further than the road, see what the steepest STA is on any road bike. While most brands do provide fairly decent geo info these days, including Reach & Stack, they leave out one VERY important metric when they state seattube angle, the height/measurement that it is taken at, Banshee Bikes and maybe a couple other state this, but most do not.
With the number of great bikes out there most of the time it's worth considering crossing a bike off your list of you're too in between sizes. Fit is everything when it comes to buying a bike.
Best way to size the bike is to use RAD (Rider Area Distance). I completely disregard manufacturers and shop sizing guidlines. I have mine within millimiters and it's spot on. It's night and day how the bike feels and rides. However, you can calculate nominal RAD using reach, stack and triangle calculator with 90 degress angle. Nominal RAD doas not include stem spacers, handlebar rise, backsweep, etc. I usually add stem lenght + 15mm to the nominal RAD when comparing bikes.
@@KevinT3141 Lee McCormack at Lee Likes Bikes has a complete book/series of website articles on RAD. He's a big advocate of it and an internationally respected MTB Coach.
You've got the chapter names wrong on the video timeline. You've got: Pros of sizing up. Cons of sizing down. Pros of sizing up. Cons of sizing down. Should be: Pros of sizing up. Cons of sizing up. Pros of sizing down. Cons of sizing down. I know I'm being nitpicky, but I'm interested in this topic and wanted to jump straight to what you thought about the advice other channels sometimes give about sizing down, and.... got confused.
I'm 175cm and between S and M on a lot of bike size calcs. I used to pick M, but then tried sizing down to S. It feels significantly better, I feel more comfortable and relaxed and more in control, like I'm riding the bike rather than just being along for the ride. It's slightly more twitchy and unstable ride though. Also it's a plus that the bike is slightly smaller to move around and has slightly less weight. I think a downside is that it's probably more difficult to resell compared to size M and L.
It's interesting how some brands have different wheel sizes on their smaller frames, while others don't. Norco is one such brand. They have 29 wheels on all their sizes, even their small. Even though they have short stays and the 29 wheels are bike, then the frame itself. I would know since my bike is like this. Just gose to show, to do your research before buying.
The modern frame sizing is so much different than decades ago. I just can't make the jump to a large frame they feel weird even though modern setups says thats what I should be on. What's really changed for me is the seat tube angles. For using geometry you need to the geometry of a bike you currently enjoy riding so you can compare it to a new bike.
The environment and terrain you're riding also matters in your sizing choices. I live in a tropical rainforest where it's mostly super narrow single track with dense overgrown vegetation. Lot's of slow speed technical stuff and really tight nasty switchbacks. Not much in the way of those big, smooth, well-manicured bike parks around this part of the world. I am often in between sizes, and I personally find sizing down is always the better option. In fact, I've been more inclined towards bikes with shorter reaches and steeper head angles, contrary to what the direction the industry is pushing. Unfortunately, there are a lot of riders that take too much influence from western influencers who ride in completely different environments, ending up with these ultra long, ultra slack bikes that just aren't optimal for our trails.
Thanks Owen, I've still been scoping out that Canyon you featured a few months ago, and falling squarely between two of the sizes on their fit chart. It never even occurred to me to compare its geometry chart with that of the bike I'm on now. I learned some things today... Cheers!
Bike sizing is so complicated.. I always try to match my reach when I buy a new bike but styles of bikes seem to make reach different on different sizes. What I mean is an XC bike might have the same reach in an XL as my trail bike does in a L.. but then the other measurements have to be taken into account and I think unless you are some sort of high functioning math scientist, it's hard to know exactly what you need until you get out on the trail. There are so many things you can change... crank length, stem length, seat height, seat angle, bar width..etc How is anyone ever suppose to know exactly what to change to get that little strain out of your back after a hard day of riding... ugh...
You didnt mention the obvious size and we9gjt difference of 29 over 27.5 and climbing having that what 500 ish grams of extra rubber and wheel to drag up the hill doesn't I think make it easyier to climb a hill. If it's grip u want try a new tyre. I prefer 27.5 as 29 seems huge and heavy. I only got a 29 gravel. Also got a 27.5 mullet and a 27.5 that was a 29 before but I could switch it so tried it and yeah well better so I seen it all. Weight is everything. And u didn't touch on that. It's OK understand your trying to pls the industry. 27.5 is better cornering and handling. I think matters more than any other benefits they try and sell you like it rolls better over bumps or g9ves better grip climbing yeah they don't tell you your be having to work harder to climb that hill with 29 on it so your need that extra grip they try and sell u on. 27.5 is my fav akd I'm a bike nut man. Check.my channel and bikes your see the most gorgous 27.5 ya ever seen ha ha p.s. 10 speed is my fav too. 11 max but I give the thumbs down for 12. I mean why. Ha
Have you sized up or sized down? Or did you fit perfectly in a size?
I'm 185cm. I've sized up from a XC bike 18.5'' to a 21''. Big mistake. I miss terribly the agility of the old bike (and it was lighter too). I now ride with the constant feel that "I'm in the wrong bike". Too bad I now lack the 💰 re$ource$ to change bike again. Yes, I'm worse off financially than a few years ago, but also everything (parts, frames, bikes) in the bicycle world is sooo expensive it is kinda 😵 insane.
I’m not a kid anymore so safety on the downhills is a priority, especially after an injury. When in between sizes, I go for the larger size. More stable downhill and better at most climbs
I’m 6’ tall with very short legs(29” inseam) and I ride a Trek which has a size called M/L, it fits me perfectly on my Roscoe(a hardtail), when I bought a Fuel EX(full suspension) my guy at my LBS had me take a large home then gave me a M/L to try because he said the reach measurement was different between the two. He was right to have me try the large as it was a much better fit overall even though it felt a little big at first, after a year on that bike I tried to ride a buddy’s M/L Fuel EX and could barely ride it…for me the reach measurement is paramount.
The where I ride question is irrelevant for me personally because I ride so many different trails here in the States. Local trails are dry and rocky but the problem I have is our trails have changed over time. XC trails have become enduro trails. With the popularity of eBikes now they are still changing.
Good summary and good to hear some one recognise 'effective reach' due to bars. Bar width and angle has a considerable effect rather than the simplistic 'short stem = rad bike' marketing message so often used. I'm between M and L and have found that I enjoy the smaller size in general for the reasons you summarised (but I went up for my gravel bike).
Nice one - Wife and I both 5'9. I ride most of the steeps at FoD and Staunton which you boys will love and know. I can't ride a medium because I have really gangly arms and find it a lot harder to place my weight on a shorter frame (I need a 460mm or longer), however, my wife prefers a medium because she's longer in the torso. Both of us have 29" inseam, so a 155mm - 160mm Goldix crank allows us to spin up for our next runs. She prefers a mullet setup, whereas I've been 29" for the last decade. With my apetite for steep tech, I'm quite happy with my large Giga and Rail 5, whereas she prefers a medium Mega/Remedy. The next bike we'll be getting will be an SL ebike, so it's likely to be a medium so that she can ride tech more confidently, which she won't be able to do with the Rail (being too stretched and too heavy). Can ride a medium and whip in the air, but please, keep your mullet wheels.
Great Video! I think video's like this are worth their weight in gold.. When purchasing my first "Trail" bike last year, I was between sizes, and decided to size up as well. Happy pedaler here.
When I first started mountain biking back in 1992 the guy who sold me a bike told me that I need four inches of clearance with my feet on the ground LOL. I ended up in the long run with two inches of clearance in all my bikes after that.
I just switched from an aggressive XC hardtail large to a full suspension. Although the manufacturer charts put me in a Large, the shop recommended I size down. Could not be happier. I can move around on the bike and am more confident on the bike. Don't even use a dropper anymore.
covered things very well, for me, if my knees hit the bars while pedaling standing up, I went the next size up.
Im glad you acknowledged the fact that reach is affecting by stack. Many people underestimate this.
As im also a roadie, i do think they underestimate the effect of the wheelbase on decending ability, ive found longer wheelbases create horrible understeer.
I've had various bikes with a reach of between 430mm and 515mm over the last 12 years, I can say that the 595mm reach of my nukeproof mega 290 2023 is the best fitting bike for my 187cm height and 32" inseam
I’m between 5’10”-5’11” and often fall between size m and Lrg for most brands. My wingspan measures 6’2”, and I prioritize riding from a standing position and being able to be very dynamic on a bike (lots of bike body separation). I typically like a longer reach with a low stand over/short seat tube. So for me I would size up but need a stand over of around 700-740mm. And as I prefer leaning a bike to corner a hta around 64-65 degrees feels best. Any steeper than that and the bike tends to feel out of its league in every scenario. I’ve recently built up my own transition trans am from the frame up to get a nearly perfect fit and geo for my style.
I’m 5’11” and picked up my first full sus e-bike (GasGas). I usually ride a M/L with my hardtails, but opted for a longer chain stay and a bit more reach.
Feels nice downhill, but it can also feel like a bit of a tank anywhere else. 😅
I am between a medium and a large. My last trail/enduro bike was a large Canyon Spectral in 27.5" which I fitted a 35mm stem to. My DH bike (27.5" Canyon Sender AL) is a large. I went with this because I like the stability of a longer wheelbase. I recently upgraded the Spectral for a medium Commencal Meta V5 and put a 50mm stem on. I downsized frame as I rode a mates Meta V4 in large and it was just felt too big. My medium V5 feels perfect. Still trying to get used to 29" wheels, but compared to the Spectral, I can feel the difference, just need to get back to a trail I have ridden the Spectral on previously to compare lap times.
I sized down once after buying a bike that was massively reduced in the sales. It handled terrible sketchy downhill, and climbing just put massive strain on my lower back. So I've taken fitment very seriously ever since. Get measured and get it right 👍
Pretty good overview Owen, given in pretty easy to understand way. I won't be buying a new bike anytime soon until the STA start to slacken back out, you just CAN'T engage your biggest muscle group when you're perched right over the BB like you are with the modern, stupid steep STA angles - if you want proof, look no further than the road, see what the steepest STA is on any road bike.
While most brands do provide fairly decent geo info these days, including Reach & Stack, they leave out one VERY important metric when they state seattube angle, the height/measurement that it is taken at, Banshee Bikes and maybe a couple other state this, but most do not.
With the number of great bikes out there most of the time it's worth considering crossing a bike off your list of you're too in between sizes. Fit is everything when it comes to buying a bike.
Best way to size the bike is to use RAD (Rider Area Distance). I completely disregard manufacturers and shop sizing guidlines. I have mine within millimiters and it's spot on. It's night and day how the bike feels and rides. However, you can calculate nominal RAD using reach, stack and triangle calculator with 90 degress angle. Nominal RAD doas not include stem spacers, handlebar rise, backsweep, etc. I usually add stem lenght + 15mm to the nominal RAD when comparing bikes.
Interesting, never heard that term before. May be a new GMBN video topic in there...
@@KevinT3141 Lee McCormack at Lee Likes Bikes has a complete book/series of website articles on RAD. He's a big advocate of it and an internationally respected MTB Coach.
You've got the chapter names wrong on the video timeline. You've got: Pros of sizing up. Cons of sizing down. Pros of sizing up. Cons of sizing down. Should be: Pros of sizing up. Cons of sizing up. Pros of sizing down. Cons of sizing down. I know I'm being nitpicky, but I'm interested in this topic and wanted to jump straight to what you thought about the advice other channels sometimes give about sizing down, and.... got confused.
I'm 175cm and between S and M on a lot of bike size calcs. I used to pick M, but then tried sizing down to S. It feels significantly better, I feel more comfortable and relaxed and more in control, like I'm riding the bike rather than just being along for the ride. It's slightly more twitchy and unstable ride though. Also it's a plus that the bike is slightly smaller to move around and has slightly less weight. I think a downside is that it's probably more difficult to resell compared to size M and L.
It's interesting how some brands have different wheel sizes on their smaller frames, while others don't. Norco is one such brand. They have 29 wheels on all their sizes, even their small. Even though they have short stays and the 29 wheels are bike, then the frame itself. I would know since my bike is like this. Just gose to show, to do your research before buying.
The modern frame sizing is so much different than decades ago. I just can't make the jump to a large frame they feel weird even though modern setups says thats what I should be on. What's really changed for me is the seat tube angles.
For using geometry you need to the geometry of a bike you currently enjoy riding so you can compare it to a new bike.
Where was this video made?
The environment and terrain you're riding also matters in your sizing choices. I live in a tropical rainforest where it's mostly super narrow single track with dense overgrown vegetation. Lot's of slow speed technical stuff and really tight nasty switchbacks. Not much in the way of those big, smooth, well-manicured bike parks around this part of the world. I am often in between sizes, and I personally find sizing down is always the better option. In fact, I've been more inclined towards bikes with shorter reaches and steeper head angles, contrary to what the direction the industry is pushing. Unfortunately, there are a lot of riders that take too much influence from western influencers who ride in completely different environments, ending up with these ultra long, ultra slack bikes that just aren't optimal for our trails.
Thanks Owen, I've still been scoping out that Canyon you featured a few months ago, and falling squarely between two of the sizes on their fit chart. It never even occurred to me to compare its geometry chart with that of the bike I'm on now. I learned some things today... Cheers!
Also, great production on this video, and your confidence in front of the camera has really grown. Great to see you out there shredding it!
Bike sizing is so complicated.. I always try to match my reach when I buy a new bike but styles of bikes seem to make reach different on different sizes. What I mean is an XC bike might have the same reach in an XL as my trail bike does in a L.. but then the other measurements have to be taken into account and I think unless you are some sort of high functioning math scientist, it's hard to know exactly what you need until you get out on the trail. There are so many things you can change... crank length, stem length, seat height, seat angle, bar width..etc How is anyone ever suppose to know exactly what to change to get that little strain out of your back after a hard day of riding... ugh...
I'm always a size large,no matter what the 'numbers' say..ha!
My down country bike is a small and my aggressive hardtail is a med and both are set up close to the same reach
5,9 on med with 35mm stem
What's happened to Anna ,where is she 😮
26??
You didnt mention the obvious size and we9gjt difference of 29 over 27.5 and climbing having that what 500 ish grams of extra rubber and wheel to drag up the hill doesn't I think make it easyier to climb a hill. If it's grip u want try a new tyre. I prefer 27.5 as 29 seems huge and heavy. I only got a 29 gravel. Also got a 27.5 mullet and a 27.5 that was a 29 before but I could switch it so tried it and yeah well better so I seen it all. Weight is everything. And u didn't touch on that. It's OK understand your trying to pls the industry. 27.5 is better cornering and handling. I think matters more than any other benefits they try and sell you like it rolls better over bumps or g9ves better grip climbing yeah they don't tell you your be having to work harder to climb that hill with 29 on it so your need that extra grip they try and sell u on. 27.5 is my fav akd I'm a bike nut man. Check.my channel and bikes your see the most gorgous 27.5 ya ever seen ha ha p.s. 10 speed is my fav too. 11 max but I give the thumbs down for 12. I mean why. Ha
What's the pack that you have fitted to the downtube in front of the waterbottle please ?