Jump to content
Lacch

Frame size and "fit"

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, mack_turtle said:

I've spent an inordinate amount of time with Lee McCormack's old online fit calculator. He published a book with access to it as well. interestingly, Pete Verdone has a fascinatingly simple way to measure your body's effective range of motion. then he shows you how to apply it to the bike. it looks complicated because of all the math, but it's quite simple. to make it even easier, I put the calculations in a spreadsheet: PVD_RAD_free.xlsx

The key here is that the distance between your feet and your hands is a distinct, and vital, part of how your bike fits. the distance from the bar to the saddle is also important. then there's saddle height and offset. but most of the interesting stuff that happens on a mountain bike happens when your butt is nowhere near the saddle, so start with that RAD measurement. too many people "fit" a mountain bike in a trainer with the rider sitting the whole time. that's a great way to fit a road bike, not a mountain bike.

Now that I'm looking at your spreadsheet, I remember that you had shared it previously. At the time it probably seemed like too much trouble, but I'm much more interested now and will give it a go. Much appreciated! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is very a propos for me.  I was actually going to come back and post here.  Several things going on for me:

  1. Shopping for a new F/S and saw Rich Drew's long term review of the Transition Spur.  I posted a question about tweener sizing b/c he talked about he's also between M and L.  What you ride makes a difference.  based on his answer I think for me M is right.
  2. I rode my back-up SS bike yesterday. It feels cramped but I seem to ride OK in it.  My knees kinda hurt for a bit but my saddle is closer to road heigh than MTB height.  I definitely need a dropper on it.
  3. I rode my gravel bike on SN and felt faster cornering on it (on 40mm gravel tires) while on the drops than with my FS bike.  What does this say about my setup/geometry/skills?

As I rode my SS on 1/4 yesterday, I was thinking of all this.  My bikes are setup for 12 and 24 hour races with the body of a desk jokey 40+ old person, not fun riding or XC riding or downhill/enduro riding.  I wondered if I slam my bars would I be able to corner faster?  I think I would.  I'm also going to take another look at mack_turtle's spreadsheet.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I used Lee's two RAD measurement calcs and am getting wildly different values. I am 5'10" and have short legs and pretty short arms.

Backstory: I dropped enough weight during covid to gift myself a new FS bike. I am coming from a 18" 2014 hardtail with 120mm RS Revelation fork. I demo'd a Revel Rascal from from Velorangutan about a month ago and while I liked it ok, I didn't love it and had some lower back pain. Two weeks ago I tried a medium Ripley and really liked it. Set a bunch of PRs on a 18 mile ride along the SATN and everything about the bike felt really good. It made me want to push and I felt solid on the bike The only issues I had with it was that maybe my sit bones were at the end of the seat, but I didn't have any discomfort, and that the cranks seemed shorter than what I am used to which made it seem harder on climbs when I got out of the saddle. Harder in the sense that I was pedaling quicker revolutions which kinda tired me out.

This weekend, I tried the large Ripley and went on the same ride. I had stayed up too late the night before the ride and was almost 1mph slower. The bike felt ok but again, I didn't love it. Swapped it out for a large Occam with the big Fox 36 up front (150mm?). It was a big bike that I liked, but didn't love.

I then saw this thread and used my height to calculate my RAD from my height, and ended up with a 445 RAD. This made perfect sense since I felt really good on the medium Ripley which has a 450mm reach and the large has a 475mm. The large Occam is 474. I dived a bit deeper with the Level II RAD calculation by measuring my "knuckle height" and the "neutral" RAD came in at 480, which makes the large bikes the "better" fit. I am not sure whether I should go with my gut or that since I have been on bikes that are too small for me for so long, I do not know how "right" should feel.

Any ideas?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AntonioGG said:

This is very a propos for me.  I was actually going to come back and post here.  Several things going on for me:

  1. Shopping for a new F/S and saw Rich Drew's long term review of the Transition Spur.  I posted a question about tweener sizing b/c he talked about he's also between M and L.  What you ride makes a difference.  based on his answer I think for me M is right.
  2. I rode my back-up SS bike yesterday. It feels cramped but I seem to ride OK in it.  My knees kinda hurt for a bit but my saddle is closer to road heigh than MTB height.  I definitely need a dropper on it.
  3. I rode my gravel bike on SN and felt faster cornering on it (on 40mm gravel tires) while on the drops than with my FS bike.  What does this say about my setup/geometry/skills?

As I rode my SS on 1/4 yesterday, I was thinking of all this.  My bikes are setup for 12 and 24 hour races with the body of a desk jokey 40+ old person, not fun riding or XC riding or downhill/enduro riding.  I wondered if I slam my bars would I be able to corner faster?  I think I would.  I'm also going to take another look at mack_turtle's spreadsheet.

The gravel bike with drop bars probably got more of your weight over the front tire.

On my first hardtail years ago I replaced the 100+mm stem with a 50mm.  Suddenly (as a newbie) I could get the wheel up and onto ledges, but equally suddenly I started washing out on corners until I learned to consciously shift my weight forwards.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, avines said:

I then saw this thread and used my height to calculate my RAD from my height, and ended up with a 445 RAD. This made perfect sense since I felt really good on the medium Ripley which has a 450mm reach and the large has a 475mm. The large Occam is 474. I dived a bit deeper with the Level II RAD calculation by measuring my "knuckle height" and the "neutral" RAD came in at 480, which makes the large bikes the "better" fit. I am not sure whether I should go with my gut or that since I have been on bikes that are too small for me for so long, I do not know how "right" should feel.

I am 5'9" and my RAD is in the 800mm range. I think you're measuring it wrong. if you buy a frame that's within a ballpark of what should fit you well, you should have no problem getting the RAD distance with handlebar, stem, and spacers.

Edited by mack_turtle
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, avines said:

So I used Lee's two RAD measurement calcs and am getting wildly different values. I am 5'10" and have short legs and pretty short arms.

Backstory: I dropped enough weight during covid to gift myself a new FS bike. I am coming from a 18" 2014 hardtail with 120mm RS Revelation fork. I demo'd a Revel Rascal from from Velorangutan about a month ago and while I liked it ok, I didn't love it and had some lower back pain. Two weeks ago I tried a medium Ripley and really liked it. Set a bunch of PRs on a 18 mile ride along the SATN and everything about the bike felt really good. It made me want to push and I felt solid on the bike The only issues I had with it was that maybe my sit bones were at the end of the seat, but I didn't have any discomfort, and that the cranks seemed shorter than what I am used to which made it seem harder on climbs when I got out of the saddle. Harder in the sense that I was pedaling quicker revolutions which kinda tired me out.

This weekend, I tried the large Ripley and went on the same ride. I had stayed up too late the night before the ride and was almost 1mph slower. The bike felt ok but again, I didn't love it. Swapped it out for a large Occam with the big Fox 36 up front (150mm?). It was a big bike that I liked, but didn't love.

I then saw this thread and used my height to calculate my RAD from my height, and ended up with a 445 RAD. This made perfect sense since I felt really good on the medium Ripley which has a 450mm reach and the large has a 475mm. The large Occam is 474. I dived a bit deeper with the Level II RAD calculation by measuring my "knuckle height" and the "neutral" RAD came in at 480, which makes the large bikes the "better" fit. I am not sure whether I should go with my gut or that since I have been on bikes that are too small for me for so long, I do not know how "right" should feel.

Any ideas?

 

 

I feel awkward giving specific fit advise, but when I bought my last bike I let the numbers dictate that I should buy a size larger frame than I initially thought.  There was definitely an acclimation phase, but now I'm glad I did.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mack_turtle said:

I am 5'9" and my RAD is in the 800mm range. I think you're measuring it wrong. if you buy a frame that's within a ballpark of what should fit you well, you should have no problem getting the RAD distance with handlebar, stem, and spacers.

Yeah, I think I mischaracterized what I was talking about.  I was using Lee's calculations for a frame size based on reach from the video above and another I got to from that one.

Height in cm (178) x 2.5 = 445 

RAD x 5.5. RAD was calculated based on my "knuckle height" of 87.25 cm the first several times I measured it for 480. I just redid it and it came in lower, at 85.5 which equates to 470 reach. Still significantly different than the easy "height only" calculation.

I am probably still doing something wrong. Anyone have a rec on a good "fitter" in town?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, avines said:

I just redid it and it came in lower, at 85.5 which equates to 470 reach. Still significantly different than the easy "height only" calculation.

I am probably still doing something wrong. Anyone have a rec on a good "fitter" in town?

Yes, that's Lee's super-short cut way to get frame reach. That helps you get into a ballpark for the frame, but not the rest of the bike setup.

2020-05-15-PVD-Warbird-for-RAD2-Close.pn

the measurement Pete has labeled here as 844mm is RAD. distance from the handlebar to the bb center. that measurement can be just about anything, on almost any frame, depending on the stem, spacers, and handlebar. a handlebar that has more backsweep will shorten the RAD, as will lowering everything and a shorter stem. in my case, I have a 12° backswept bar, so I put a 70mm stem on my bike to mitigate the shortening effect of the handlebar. if I were to buy a new frame, I'd get something a little bit longer, but not excessively so. you won't find RAD listed on bicycle geometry charts because it's not an inherent part of the frame. but once you've played around with a few bikes, you can start with an approximate reach you know will work for you and go from there.

I respect bike fitters, but 99% of them are not going to fit your bike for standing and wrangling the bike over terrain. They are going to put the bike in a stationary trainer and optimize it for seated pedaling. While that is important on any bicycle, it leave a lot unsaid for standing and hucking the bike up ledges, jumping, etc.

Edited by mack_turtle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, AntonioGG said:

Any good sketchers that can illustrate the angles PV talks about?  Those drawings are not making sense to me.

(sorry about the formatting below. I somehow added quotes within quotes and it's impossible to undo now.)

This might illustrate it better. http://www.peterverdone.com/im-soooo-rad/

if you are talking about this:

2020-05-15-PVD-RAD-Compare-Boys.png

the length in red is the distance from the BB center to the center of the grip (the midpoint between the grips). this is what we're calling RAD rider area distance a la Lee McCormack. I found that mine fits well around 790–810mm and I am 5'9". Pete is starting with 844mm, which seems a bit long to me but maybe he has long arms.

the longest, nearly vertical length is the riders  effective shoulder height. in the first drawing, that's 1457.5mm.

the numbers in the 635–667mm range above are the arm length. this is derived the method he describes using a broom handle. you can't measure this without movement, measuring two extremes and finding the average. 

the angle in red is the angle formed by the ground, the BB, and the rider's shoulder. 81° in this case.

Quote

For trail and enduro type bikes, the body angle should be around 81 to 82 degrees from the ground. More upright will be less aggressive and for folks with weaker cores and upper bodies…or for very aggressive descending. The arm angle from the body will be around 33 to 33.5 degrees.

For XC MTB and aggressive All-road, the body angle should be around 80 to 81 degrees from the ground. More upright will be less aggressive and for folks with weaker cores and upper bodies. The arm angle from the body will be around 32 to 32.5 degrees. (end quote)

the bottom horizontal number is the effective reach—from the BB center to the grip. the companion vertical number is the effective stack—from the BB center to the grip.

you'll notice that actual height is not a factor here because the dimensions of your neck and skull have no effect on how your bike fits.

Sorry to dump this on you folks. I guess I have been reading and writing about it for so long that it just clicks for me. Geometry (trigonometry and such) in general has always come naturally to me. Keep in mind that Pete is a consummate engineer, so he breaks down real world ideas into technical drawings. it creates ideal measurements of real things to simplify them. the end result in the real world are going to vary, but staring with an idealized model is the right way to start.

You're finding the actual height of you shoulder socket and the effective length of your arms. You can only really do that by measuring these distances at their extreme ends and finding the average.

Sorry if this seems over-eager and creepy, but I can probably help anyone here take these measurements and adjust their bike accordingly in my garage. (I'll wear a mask, keep the door open, and keep the hand sani nearby.) It won't be definitive, but it's worth trying.

 

Edited by mack_turtle
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never been fitted for an MTB but have had multiple fit sessions for road bikes years ago. Most of them didn't produce much benefit for me except for small tweaks. What would happen for me is I'd get fit and set the bike up according to the numbers for the fit but eventually would go back to my original set up because it just felt better. The best fit I had gotten was from Dave at Music City Cycles. He determined that my frame size was correct and made a few small adjustments according to my saddle position and my flexibility.  Dave changed my saddle position and my handlebar rise, I rode the bike like that for about two weeks. The saddle position was the only benefit I really noticed, the handle bar height I didn't like or feel comfortable with so I went back to my original bar height. I understand that road and MTB fit differently due to the fact that on a road bike you spend most of your time in the saddle and on an MTB you need to be more dynamic on the bike being able to control the bike in multiple riding positions. This is just my opinion but I think people tend to overthink bike fit and get too consumed by numbers. What I have learned over the years of riding bikes is that if it feels good to you it's probably the right fit. Your body can tell you much more than a bunch of numbers can.

The wife and I went to Durango a couple of years ago I didn't bring my bike because she doesn't ride and didn't want to make the trip seem like it was about me going riding. I did however get to rent a bike and ride for a day while I was there. I went to one of the bike shops that rented good bikes that was recommended by someone there. This shop was an Ibis dealer and rented bikes for the day. When I went the shop I explained to him what my daily ride was which at the time was a large V1 Following. I narrowed my choices down to a Ripley or Ripmo. They only had a large Ripmo for rent but had a med and large Ripley. The Ripmo was a bit too much bike for the trails I was going to ride but I tested it in the parking lot and it felt huge especially in the top tube length so that one was a no go for me. I tried both the large and med Ripley thinking that because I was riding a large Following I should try the large Ripley and that one also felt huge to me and made me feel like was too stretched out which would make the handling a bit squirrely, the med fit almost exactly like my Following.

 Recently sold the following and bought a Rascal. I fell between sizes on the Rascal and could have gotten a large or a medium. I spoke with Revel about which one might be a better choice and decided on the medium. My Rascal surprisingly fit exactly like my Following after building it. The only difference being the medium Rascal has a longer reach and a longer front center than my Following did. I don't like a bike that's too long in the wheel base especially for the trails around her it becomes a bit cumbersome. 

Don't get too hung up on numbers. If you're riding a bike that feels good to you when you're considering a new bike try to keep all of the cockpit dimensions as close as possible. A bit more reach or longer front center on a bike that has the same cockpit dimensions can be an improvement. As can HA and fork offset. JMHO.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chief said:

 I understand that road and MTB fit differently due to the fact that on a road bike you spend most of your time in the saddle and on an MTB you need to be more dynamic on the bike being able to control the bike in multiple riding positions. This is just my opinion but I think people tend to overthink bike fit and get too consumed by numbers.

Thats pretty much it right there^

You'll drive yourself nuts trying to find the unicorn bike of your dreams. My "backup bike" has a STL thats really 30mm longer than I'd like but it was the only high pivot bike available, so I just ran a shorter dropper and moved on. On the other hand, listed numbers may not always be what the seem.  My wife's second bike is advertised with an ETTL 0f 590mm and her primary bike is advertised at 565mm. I thought that would be perfect as it'd give her a little more room up top. Instead its about 25mm SHORTER than her primary bike. My commencal was advertised with a 65* HTA while it actually measured 63* .

Ill usually go one size larger no matter what as long as the STL is manageable. If I were looking at buying a full DH rig, I might consider a +2 up to an XL as stability is was more important to me than tricks.

 

Edited by ATXZJ
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

there's nothing wrong with measuring two dimensions on your body and finding a ballpark that should work as a starting point. I don't think that's "overthinking" it. it takes less than ten minutes to apply the method I described and it gives you a number to start with as a geometrical ideal. it's not prescriptive in a specific sense, just a geometric ideal to use as a starting point. you can make minor tweaks from there. the human body is a system of levers and axles: bones and joints. you can optimize how your bike interfaces with that system of levers and axles with geometry. science wins!

otherwise, you're just blindly throwing darts at a geo chart and letting woo-woo feelings, suspension and big tires cover up the fact that your bike is fighting you for control. IMO, most people have a bike that is way too big for them because it feels "comfortable." until they ride a bike that allows a full range of motion, like in the Joy of Bike video earlier in this thread, they never know what they are missing.

I promise that this method is easier than trial and error. it takes ten minutes or less. I only go into detail because people don't believe me that it makes sense and it works in the real world until they 1) try it (which no one I know has done yet, despite the fact that it takes no time and is based in science), or 2) have seen and comprehended detailed documentation of how it works, which just confuses people who don't think like an engineer.

take it or leave it. I can't make anyone adopt a simple, reasonable theory. but don't knock it until you've tried it.

Edited by mack_turtle
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, mack_turtle said:

 

otherwise, you're just blindly throwing darts at a geo chart and letting suspension and big tires cover up the fact that your bike is fighting your for control. IMO, most people have a bike that is way too big for them because it feels "comfortable." until they ride a bike that allows a full range of motion, like in the Joy of Bike video earlier in this thread, they never know what they are missing.

I can agree with some of this. I can absolutely be at war with a large, heavy bike or just let it do what it's supposed to do, and monster truck the trail.  I've had dozens of mountain bikes of various sizes and geo and settled on larger bikes because they just feel better to me at speed. That's where the fun is for me.

When I ride my wife's bikes that are smaller, they always feel fun and way easier to manage around the basic trails here like the stuff on SATN. I think this really applies to 29ers and can see staying on the more conservative side when choosing one. Would i want a quick maneuvering bike for every ride? No. Saving for a gravel bike to scratch that itch.

Edited by ATXZJ
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

every time I read a @ATXZJ post, I think "that guy must absolutely hate it here and he needs to get out ASAP." ha!

the wife and I have been entertaining the idea of moving to the Pacific northwest. it's unlikely, but it's fun to dream about the possibility of life elsewhere. I've spent enough time watching videos of the terrain there to know that my Karate Monkey would NOT be the right bike for the job! I would probably sell my frame at the very least, probably before we left so I don't get stuck with it, and buy something with a longer wheelbase. however, that dimension between the feet and hands still stays about the same. if terrain changes and the wheelbase gets longer, that does not mean that my arms suddenly get longer. my body is still the same geometric system of levers and axles as it is in Texas, Florida, Vermont, or Seattle.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, mack_turtle said:

every time I read a @ATXZJ post, I think "that guy must absolutely hate it here and he needs to get out ASAP." ha!

the wife and I have been entertaining the idea of moving to the Pacific northwest. it's unlikely, but it's fun to dream about the possibility of life elsewhere. I've spent enough time watching videos of the terrain there to know that my Karate Monkey would NOT be the right bike for the job! I would probably sell my frame at the very least, probably before we left so I don't get stuck with it, and buy something with a longer wheelbase. however, that dimension between the feet and hands still stays about the same. if terrain changes and the wheelbase gets longer, that does not mean that my arms suddenly get longer. my body is still the same geometric system of levers and axles as it is in Texas, Florida, Vermont, or Seattle.

Hey, I resemble that comment!!

You know, I'm just happy to be healthy enough to go out and ride. Bike is secondary at this point. Is Austin the "best" biking? Probably not. However it's a hell of a lot better than many other places, and we have a strong enough economy to put enough cash in my pocket to take trips and ride the epic stuff. 

I'd say just pack up when you can, and go ride some of those places on your bike and also rent a bike there too. The outerbike stuff is a great way to sample a multitude of bikes. I suspect when you do, spreadsheets will be the furthest thing from your mind.

Edited by ATXZJ
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone that knows me knows I obsess over numbers and design and anything technicall.  It's part of the fun for me.  I've also just bought bikes because I liked how they rode:  2005 BMC demo day, took home a Foustroke, 2010 went to Breckenridge, rented a Tallboy, bought that as soon as I got home.  Ordered the P29er frame and parts and just built it.  Found the right size SC Stigmata and just bought it without test riding it.   For me this exercise is not as much about my next bike purchase but also to understand what I feel when I feel the differences between my bikes and others I've ridden. 

@ATXZJ on my list was a 2020 Tallboy until I rode it.  You describe almost exactly what I said about it when I rode it.  I felt like I could go down more stuff, I also felt I could only plow up stuff.  I imagine it's like driving a trophy truck vs a road race car. 

@mack_turtle yes those are the drawings that are still throwing me off.  What you call arm length he calls body length and vice-versa.  The arm length is the ~1500 figure and the body length is the ~650 figure.   I understand RAD and I think where the BB (BB = crank axis?) and handlebar centerline in the drawing are as well as the crank axis to handlebar radius and angle, the rest not so much.

image.thumb.png.4953782126ab603caf9d15e32b1a8744.png

 

That's why I'm all confused.  What I really want is someone to draw me a stick figure over the engineering drawing.  like this?  It makes no sense to me but this is what I'm hoping to get a better understanding. I know how to do the measurements and I have the spreadsheet, but I just want to understand the body to arm angle, body angle to ground (I think this is easier to grasp.  I know the picture is way wrong b/c that seat tube angle is very messed up which is why I'm confused.
image.thumb.png.cf707519359a5dea2acbf3d55175a5c2.png

Edited by AntonioGG
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was seriously about to draw a stick figure over the drawing above like you did, but I couldn't find a Mac program like Paint that would allow that.

the 81° in the image above is not the torso angle, but the angle from the feet to the shoulders. torso angle, while dynamic, is going to be leaned forward more than that. move your stick figure's butt back a bit and it would be more accurate. the position of your hips on a mountain bike is dynamic, it changes constantly except for when you're planted on the saddle. that's an important factor as well, but we're talking about where your contact points are when you're wrangling the bike over terrain. if you're doing it right, the saddle position is irrelevant in these moments. for most of us, the saddle has been intensionally dropped out of the way by use of a telescoping seatpost. even if you're using a rigid post, you're still moving your hips around the saddle, trying to avoid allowing it to hit you in the taint as you move your CoM around the bike.

I think he reversed arm/body length in that chart! oops.

when you get the basic measurements, it's not static like on a road bike. it just finds a neutral starting point for your proportions.

watch a video of a BMX racer pump a set of rollers. Lee McCormack has some images that illustrate this specifically as well. the head and shoulders stay about the same as the bike moves under the rider. you use your arms and legs in a full-body motion to keep the bike centered under you, or you centered over the bike. this is why Lee uses the term "row" and "anti-row"—because it's not unlike aggressively rowing a boat. I think he described it to me as "making beautiful violence to the ground with your hands and feet" or something. he also sells a kind of cool but expensive bit of equipment called the RipRow, which simulates the movement of wrangling a mountain bike over rough terrain in the gym. same concept.

Edited by mack_turtle
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mack_turtle said:

I was seriously about to draw a stick figure over the drawing above like you did, but I couldn't find a Mac program like Paint that would allow that.

I did mine in Preview.  It's more powerful than you think.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AntonioGG said:

OK, so it's "body" length not actual body length.  With that plus knowing he flipped the terms on his chart now it makes sense.  Thanks!!

Here's the updated sketch:

image.thumb.png.2f026e139c770aa941ae143818a6a4ba.png

yes, that's now be better representation for a neck-less rider.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2021 at 11:05 AM, AntonioGG said:

This is very a propos for me.  I was actually going to come back and post here.  Several things going on for me:

  1. Shopping for a new F/S and saw Rich Drew's long term review of the Transition Spur.  I posted a question about tweener sizing b/c he talked about he's also between M and L.  What you ride makes a difference.  based on his answer I think for me M is right.

Agree on sizing a bit conservative on the Spur. That thing will make for a bad ass bike, but the L might be a little long out here with a 1219mm WB.  Medium is a more manageable 1190

 

Thanks to this discussion and @Chief I fell down the "fit" rabbit hole a bit. Not particularly for myself, but my wife. She was recently diagnosed with mild arthritis in her shoulders and has had regular pain for the past 2-3 years. Funny thing is none of the pain is present during biking, but a few days following. Her therapist said the pain would be immediate, so we never considered fit being an issue.  After watching the vids and doing some calculations it seems her bars might be a little too wide at 750mm and reach is a little long. Going to chop the bars to 720 and shorten the stem 10mm to 45mm and see how she responds.

Edited by ATXZJ
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ATXZJ said:

Agree on sizing a bit conservative on the Spur. That thing will make for a bad ass bike, but the L might be a little long out here with a 1219mm WB.  Medium is a more manageable 1190

 

Thanks to this discussion and @Chief I fell down the "fit" rabbit hole a bit. Not particularly for myself, but my wife. She was recently diagnosed with mild arthritis in her shoulders and has had regular pain for the past 2-3 years. Funny thing is none of the pain is present during biking, but a few days following. Her therapist said the pain would be immediate, so we never considered fit being an issue.  After watching the vids and doing some calculations it seems her bars might be a little too wide at 750mm and reach is a little long. Going to chop the bars to 720 and shorten the stem 10mm to 45mm and see how she responds.

Interesting that you bring that up.

https://youtu.be/xMXlKED32uo

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

on a related note, I've had a SQLabs low-rise 12° bar on my bike for a few years now and I really like it. I'd like to experiment with a "normal" 9° bar in the same width again just to see if how much of a difference in control and comfort it might make.

handlebars and stems seem to me a complex variable for finding control and comfort on the bike. in the case of this 12° backswept bar, it shortens the reach quite a bit. I tried putting a 50mm stem on my bike for a long while, and concluded that it makes an already "short" bike really cramped because the backsweep effectively shortens the overall reach on the bike. I switched to a 70mm stem and it now feels much better. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...