Mountain bike sizing - how does this look?
Discussion
Bit of advice on mountain bike sizing if I may...
Went to view this WHYTE 901 size large at the weekend. I'm 6'1'' and according to the Whtye size chart this is what I should be on, LBS manager also agreed it was right saying that the XL Whyte is huge in comparison.
Now I don't think I want this bike, I'm probably after a Ragley BluePig that has almost the same geometry but as I couldn't try one I thought I'd try the Whyte to get an idea.
When on the bike it felt great, the sitting position was ok, it felt stretched enough and I didn't think I'd want the tope tube any longer. Unfortunately I couldnt ride the bike outside so could not judge the reach when standing. According to the geo charts it is 15mm ish longer than the Ragley will be but the Ragley has a 15mm longer stem so that should even things out.
It was only when home and I looked at the picture that I thought the bike looked small. I'm used to a massive 12yr old 21inch framed specialized Hardrock that looks like a garden gate and is tall and dated in all it's geometry. I want a bike that is more nimble and playful but the surprising thing is the numbers for my old Spesh are smaller in every way, stack, reach, TTE, wheelbase, yet in this photo the Whyte almost seems small.
In-store the Whyte felt good and I thought there was no way I'd want anything bigger, then I see the pic and am not so sure.
The only other new bikes I have ridden or sat on are the Marin San Quentin 3, - almost same geo but lower stack and more reach. And I have ridden a Vitus Mythique XL and Sommet L. The Sommet was cramped when sitting but felt massive despite that, the Mythique was better, the same TTE as the Whyte but more reach.
Here are the basic numbers of the Whyte incase that helps.
Reach 476. TTE 654. Stack 644. Wheelbase 1228. Stem 35
And the Ragley BluePig I hope to get in large?
Reach 460. TTE 641.2. Stack 631.8. Wheelbase.1218.8 Stem 50
Am I just not used to how modern MTBs look? This long. low, slack thing was never around when I bought my last bike. Looking at pictures and numerous YT videos everyone seems to ride smallish bikes compared to 10yrs ago, at least the frames look smaller even if wheelsize and wheelbase have gone up.
Went to view this WHYTE 901 size large at the weekend. I'm 6'1'' and according to the Whtye size chart this is what I should be on, LBS manager also agreed it was right saying that the XL Whyte is huge in comparison.
Now I don't think I want this bike, I'm probably after a Ragley BluePig that has almost the same geometry but as I couldn't try one I thought I'd try the Whyte to get an idea.
When on the bike it felt great, the sitting position was ok, it felt stretched enough and I didn't think I'd want the tope tube any longer. Unfortunately I couldnt ride the bike outside so could not judge the reach when standing. According to the geo charts it is 15mm ish longer than the Ragley will be but the Ragley has a 15mm longer stem so that should even things out.
It was only when home and I looked at the picture that I thought the bike looked small. I'm used to a massive 12yr old 21inch framed specialized Hardrock that looks like a garden gate and is tall and dated in all it's geometry. I want a bike that is more nimble and playful but the surprising thing is the numbers for my old Spesh are smaller in every way, stack, reach, TTE, wheelbase, yet in this photo the Whyte almost seems small.
In-store the Whyte felt good and I thought there was no way I'd want anything bigger, then I see the pic and am not so sure.
The only other new bikes I have ridden or sat on are the Marin San Quentin 3, - almost same geo but lower stack and more reach. And I have ridden a Vitus Mythique XL and Sommet L. The Sommet was cramped when sitting but felt massive despite that, the Mythique was better, the same TTE as the Whyte but more reach.
Here are the basic numbers of the Whyte incase that helps.
Reach 476. TTE 654. Stack 644. Wheelbase 1228. Stem 35
And the Ragley BluePig I hope to get in large?
Reach 460. TTE 641.2. Stack 631.8. Wheelbase.1218.8 Stem 50
Am I just not used to how modern MTBs look? This long. low, slack thing was never around when I bought my last bike. Looking at pictures and numerous YT videos everyone seems to ride smallish bikes compared to 10yrs ago, at least the frames look smaller even if wheelsize and wheelbase have gone up.
Edited by MiltonBaines on Monday 8th February 09:25
Edited by MiltonBaines on Monday 8th February 09:36
MiltonBaines said:
Am I just not used to how modern MTBs look? This long. low, slack thing was never around when I bought my last bike. Looking at pictures and numerous YT videos everyone seems to ride smallish bikes compared to 10yrs ago, at least the frames look smaller even if wheelsize and wheelbase have gone up.
This is the key - the frames may look 'low', as in the riders have a lot of standover, however they are much, much bigger everywhere that matters. My current 'big day out' MTB is a 29" wheeled 140mm trail bike - it has lower standover than whatever I was riding ten years ago but its MASSIVE in every other dimension - wheel size, wheelbase is significantly longer, top tube longer.There are a few things to remember - you cannot compare top tube length without also considering seat tube. Its hard to commet on your photo as its such a personal thing however it certainly does not look 'wrong' at all, certainly not way too small.
Moving forward 10 years in geo and fit is always going to be a big shock and bound to feel weird. On the basis that your not familiar enough (or have specific enough needs) to deviate from the manufacturers advice, a large is the right size for you anyway.
Thanks for the advice everyone, yep jumping forward 10years of geo and development is certainly strange, bikes look smaller but are longer, wheels seem huge with so much out front, and bar width seems crazy. But I'll get used to it all. I hired the two Vitus at Swinley and after a few minutes of thinking this is all weird, settled in and had great fun rides.
I had considered 29inch wheels until I rode the Sommet 29'' at Swinley, it had the turning circle of an oil tanker and there were some tight switchbacks I could barely get round. Probably with better technique I could but the 29s seemed like cart wheels. 27.5s look massive to my old 26er, which should do I suppose as my 9yr old daughter has 26' wheels on her bike. I want a nimble playful bike, I had read that 29s were great for steam rolling over stuff but less good on tight stuff or when you want to mess around jumping etc. Hence I was looking at 27.5s.
Nice to hear a fellow 6'1'er has a large 901 and it fits, the Ragley I hope to get is give or take the same size so hopefully will be ok.
I think I need to go with my gut feeling when I got on the bike, which was this fits, I wouldn't want it to be bigger and to ignore the photo.
Apologies for not quoting you all individually, that was beyond me on a phone. Cheers
I had considered 29inch wheels until I rode the Sommet 29'' at Swinley, it had the turning circle of an oil tanker and there were some tight switchbacks I could barely get round. Probably with better technique I could but the 29s seemed like cart wheels. 27.5s look massive to my old 26er, which should do I suppose as my 9yr old daughter has 26' wheels on her bike. I want a nimble playful bike, I had read that 29s were great for steam rolling over stuff but less good on tight stuff or when you want to mess around jumping etc. Hence I was looking at 27.5s.
Nice to hear a fellow 6'1'er has a large 901 and it fits, the Ragley I hope to get is give or take the same size so hopefully will be ok.
I think I need to go with my gut feeling when I got on the bike, which was this fits, I wouldn't want it to be bigger and to ignore the photo.
Apologies for not quoting you all individually, that was beyond me on a phone. Cheers
My last four mtbs have seen the reach figure grow by roughly 100mm which is huge.
Incrementally it's been spot on fit wize... Going straight to that increase would have felt really really odd.
The riding styles of older vs new geo is very different.
Before you comit, beg borrow or rent some sizes for some extended rides. Long reach bikes absolutely work, even on tight stuff, but do require a revised level of 'body english'
Incrementally it's been spot on fit wize... Going straight to that increase would have felt really really odd.
The riding styles of older vs new geo is very different.
Before you comit, beg borrow or rent some sizes for some extended rides. Long reach bikes absolutely work, even on tight stuff, but do require a revised level of 'body english'
Fas1975 said:
Can't help with the sizing, but I'm more interested in the LBS itself. Where is this? I haven't seen shelves of stock like that in months!
It looks like the shop owner has nicked most of Q1 UK allocation which would explain why the other shops are empty OP. Tricky one. I am 6ft and prefer a reach of 480mm+, coming from a 500mm Mondraker (in L). I have had to switch to XL in YT sizing to get 482mm.
It gives me more stability at the expense of manoeuvrability but that's what I prefer so it's massively subjective.
Unfortunately I don't know any one else into MTBs, or at least anyone with a modern geo bike.
The nearest I've got was riding the two Vitus at Swinley. The Mythique XL was the nicer of the two fit wise with a seemingly huge reach of 497mm, though the TTE was 644, about the same as the Ragley/Whyte. I could have gone smaller but am not sure if a hardtail fits in the same way as a FS, and whether the geo can really be compared.
The nearest I've got was riding the two Vitus at Swinley. The Mythique XL was the nicer of the two fit wise with a seemingly huge reach of 497mm, though the TTE was 644, about the same as the Ragley/Whyte. I could have gone smaller but am not sure if a hardtail fits in the same way as a FS, and whether the geo can really be compared.
Edited by MiltonBaines on Monday 8th February 22:17
MiltonBaines said:
Unfortunately I don't know any one else into MTBs, or at least anyone with a modern geo bike.
The nearest I've got was riding the two Vitus at Swinley. The Mythique XL was the nicer of the two fit wise with a seemingly huge reach of 597mm, though the TTE was 644, about the same as the Ragley/Whyte. I could have gone smaller but am not sure if a hardtail fits in the same way as a FS, and whether the geo can really be compared.
Where are you based? You mention Swinley. I'm about 15 miles East of Swinley. I ride a Rocky Mountain MTB, Growler 40, 29er in an XL. I'm 6ft 2 and built "larger", if you're not too far, you're welcome to take a look. Or compare the tech spec based on what you know (again, mine is XL)The nearest I've got was riding the two Vitus at Swinley. The Mythique XL was the nicer of the two fit wise with a seemingly huge reach of 597mm, though the TTE was 644, about the same as the Ragley/Whyte. I could have gone smaller but am not sure if a hardtail fits in the same way as a FS, and whether the geo can really be compared.
Thanks I'm in Rickmansworth Herts, so possibly near you, a brief sit on your bike and a chat would be really useful.
Your bike in all measurements is bigger than anything I've looked at, the reach seems huge on paper so I'd be interested to see how that really feels.
I'll message you, cheers.
Your bike in all measurements is bigger than anything I've looked at, the reach seems huge on paper so I'd be interested to see how that really feels.
I'll message you, cheers.
MiltonBaines said:
Thanks I'm in Rickmansworth Herts, so possibly near you, a brief sit on your bike and a chat would be really useful.
Your bike in all measurements is bigger than anything I've looked at, the reach seems huge on paper so I'd be interested to see how that really feels.
I'll message you, cheers.
Not too far. I'm just outside Slough (Burnham). Will keep an eye out for your message and get something sortedYour bike in all measurements is bigger than anything I've looked at, the reach seems huge on paper so I'd be interested to see how that really feels.
I'll message you, cheers.
Also while you're at it. You can take a look at my son's bike. He has a Whyte 603v2 in an XL, and that's on 27.5s
I'm 6ft 3in on a 510mm reach 29er (size XXL but a size XL really), with an ETT of 665 - at 6ft in you'll want between 480mm ish reach and ETT of 640ish I'd say.
Shorter seat tubes are the norm now, along with 200mm dropper posts. I wouldn't accept anything over 470mm for your size really.
And as above, EVERYTYHING modern will feel really strange at first.
Shorter seat tubes are the norm now, along with 200mm dropper posts. I wouldn't accept anything over 470mm for your size really.
And as above, EVERYTYHING modern will feel really strange at first.
Thanks TallPaul, I could go up to an XL BluePig that has a TTE of 665 and a reach of 480. The stems are 50mm so there is a bit of wiggle room to make things smaller if needed, the TTE could be lowered to 650 or 655.
The numbers on the XL just seemed so large, I didn't want to be riding a cumbersome barge around the trails.
Fas1975, I know Burnham quite well, I do the half marathon there each year and spent some of my teens courting a very nice young lady who lived there...
The numbers on the XL just seemed so large, I didn't want to be riding a cumbersome barge around the trails.
Fas1975, I know Burnham quite well, I do the half marathon there each year and spent some of my teens courting a very nice young lady who lived there...
nickfrog said:
Tall_Paul said:
I wouldn't accept anything over 470mm for your size really.
Paul, you mean "under" I think.On a Size L effective bike for someone 6ft 1in, I'd want to see 470mm as the longest seat tube.
500mm on an XL is normal for some bikes, but a bit out of date, with 470mm normal on a size L. Anything bigger than that would be an instant no from me.
The Whye 901 has a 457mm ST on a size L.
Edited by Tall_Paul on Monday 8th February 18:23
joshleb said:
I would also prefer a longer top tube with short stem over a shorter top tube with a longer stem.
I find you get better control and less twitchy front end with the short stem. But then I've come from a downhill and jumping background and always wanted as short as possible stem.
Would I be better with an extra large with a TTE of 665 and a stem of 50mm that can be shortened over a large with a TTE of 641 and no stem change option?I find you get better control and less twitchy front end with the short stem. But then I've come from a downhill and jumping background and always wanted as short as possible stem.
Large TTE 641 Reach 460
XL TTE 665 Reach 480
MiltonBaines said:
joshleb said:
I would also prefer a longer top tube with short stem over a shorter top tube with a longer stem.
I find you get better control and less twitchy front end with the short stem. But then I've come from a downhill and jumping background and always wanted as short as possible stem.
Would I be better with an extra large with a TTE of 665 and a stem of 50mm that can be shortened over a large with a TTE of 641 and no stem change option?I find you get better control and less twitchy front end with the short stem. But then I've come from a downhill and jumping background and always wanted as short as possible stem.
Large TTE 641 Reach 460
XL TTE 665 Reach 480
Then no, go for the size L. The 460mm reach will actually be longer due to the fork sag, 665ETT is good for me, but I'm 6ft 3in.
Even the size chart has you bang in the middle at 186cm, of a size L.
Forget about how bikes used to look, horizontal top tubes are a thing of the past, droppers are getting longer (the blue pig comes with a 170mm on L and XL), and a more straight line between top tube and seat stay is considered better looking.
This is normal with current bikes.
This is fine, if it was 2005.
Edited by Tall_Paul on Monday 8th February 20:46
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff