Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,076 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
...gents, how many of you 6 footers are riding mediums vs large 6.6s? I believe that the larges have been available just recently, but I'm wondering if anyone that height ponied up the dough for a medium.

TIA
 

·
"55 lbs and climbing!"
Joined
·
1,034 Posts
6foot3

I'm 6 foot 3. I'm used to a longish top tube and the large looks on the short side at 23.8". Let me know you thoughts on the cocpit area. Cramped?...or just right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,076 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
specialm5 said:
Just recieved my large 6.6 today, P.S. the red is a really cool blood red. :D
Let's see some pics of that biatch.

For some reason, a 21" seattube seems like it'd be too tall for me.
 

·
Just another FOC'er
Joined
·
2,222 Posts
incubus said:
Let's see some pics of that biatch.

For some reason, a 21" seattube seems like it'd be too tall for me.
The 23.8" TT sounds good, but a 21" seattube wouldn't work for me because I like to slam the seat way down. If you're only looking for 5ish inches of adjustment it should work though.

BTW, the long seattubes always make me think medium.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,954 Posts
Same dilemma here. I'm 71.5" high and undecided on M vs L. The top tube would probably be OK, and I rarely slam the seat way down but, dang, that 21" seat tube just looks tall on the L.

OTOH, For my style of riding. .. (semi- upright position, lots of tight twisty singletrack, rocky steps, drops, lots of climbing, etc.... not a lot of high speed bombing or huge drops), the M may be better since I typically like a frame a bit on the smaller side. But the 22.8 tt just seems short.

Hmm. I wish they had a size that was a slam dunk for us. It seems like 9 out of 10 people who post their height are between 5' 10" and 6'.... Why not aim a size directly at them?
 

·
٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶[$
Joined
·
885 Posts
Either will likely work...

I'm 6' with 32" inseam and I went with a medium.

I was also having a tough time deciding between M & L but opted for a medium since my old Uzzi DH was a medium and the dimensions are pretty close. I also prefer my bikes to be a little on the "smallish" side and like to drop the seat for more technical descents so it works for me.

I was a little cramped when I first built it up with a 90mm stem so I moved up to 100mm and slid the seat back a bit on the rails. I've been riding it with this setup now for the last several weeks with a few 15-20 mile rides and plenty of climbing and it feels great.
 

·
aka...appBLING72
Joined
·
1,036 Posts
MondoRides said:
I'm 6' with 32" inseam and I went with a medium.

I was also having a tough time deciding between M & L but opted for a medium since my old Uzzi DH was a medium and the dimensions are pretty close. I also prefer my bikes to be a little on the "smallish" side and like to drop the seat for more technical descents so it works for me.

I was a little cramped when I first built it up with a 90mm stem so I moved up to 100mm and slid the seat back a bit on the rails. I've been riding it with this setup now for the last several weeks with a few 15-20 mile rides and plenty of climbing and it feels great.
I too am 5'11" almost 6' and ordered a medium. I have a medium Uzzi with a 70mm stem and prefer the smaller mikes for agility sakes. I just slide the seat back in the setback post and everything feels great. From the the geo chart the 6.6 should be identical.
 

·
Just another FOC'er
Joined
·
2,222 Posts
Tough call.

That short TT on the medium pushes you into using a pretty long stem. I don't really like to push the seat back because we have a lot of steep climbs here and that makes the front end too light to climb well.

If I didn't care a lot about really dropping the seat a lot I'd go large because I could run a shorter stem.

BTW, the measurement that I use now is the BB to the top of the headtube. This tells me how the bike will feel when I'm riding out of the saddle and that's what means most to me for bike handling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,076 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Thanks for all the replies.

Are the published numbers actual toptube lengths or virtual. The numbers struck me as short as well, so I assumed that they were actual.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,103 Posts
i believe the FAQ on the intense site says their measurements are actual, not effective.
if so then you could guestimate another 15 to 25mm for the effective.
or ask someone with a medium to measure it.
anyone?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
6.6 Med measurements

I measured my Med 6.6. The TT it is 22.8" effective, parallel to the ground, from center on HT to center of seatpost as close as I can measure it. My Headtube angle and seat tube angle are 1 degree steeper with a Nixon & flush headset than published measured at 69.5 and 74. The BB is a little taller measured at 14" with Kenda Blue Groove 2.35" (tall tires). My bud just a got a BRG 6.6 Med, built up with a 36 Talas and a flush headset. His angles are 69 and 73.5 with the Talas fully extended. As noted in the shock forum the 36 Talas is running shorter than the full 6" travel. I measured the crown to axle on both forks, Nixon was 20.5", 36 Talas was only 1/2" taller at 21". We are thinking the 36 Van will set this up at 68-68.5 HA and a 73-73.5 SA, if some one wants a more stable set-up.
Hope this info helps.
You may have read my thoughts on this bike. To recap it has recalibrated my thoughts on long travel trail bikes. I did not believe you could have plush long travel and great pedaling in the same package. Thanks to Beth and Charles at Hammerhead for the great ride.
HoJo
 

·
Just another FOC'er
Joined
·
2,222 Posts
Fork observations

A friend had one of the medium demo 6.6s for a couple weeks. He pulled the Nixon off first and put his Pike on it. That head angle was kind of steep for him considering the type of trails we ride - probably 69 degrees. Next he put his Pushed 7" Boxxer and a shorter stem on the bike. He said the HA was 67 degrees, and I measured the BB height at around 14.25. He was ripping on that setup both up and down. It felt nice, the steering was definitely not floppy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,954 Posts
.Danno. said:
Tough call.

That short TT on the medium pushes you into using a pretty long stem. I don't really like to push the seat back because we have a lot of steep climbs here and that makes the front end too light to climb well.
I agree. I think this makes me lean towards the Large. I want to run a shortish stem (90mm or so)and I don't like to be too far behind the BB for climbing. Plus with my shortish legs I need that to get my lower leg perpindicular to the the ground when the forward crank is horizontal.

.Danno. said:
If I didn't care a lot about really dropping the seat a lot I'd go large because I could run a shorter stem.
I don't care about dropping the seat a lot..... so that also pushes me towards Large.

.Danno. said:
BTW, the measurement that I use now is the BB to the top of the headtube. This tells me how the bike will feel when I'm riding out of the saddle and that's what means most to me for bike handling.
Interesting. This is a good point.... but manufacturers don't publish this number, do they? I'll have to measure this on my bike and get some Large and Medium 6.6 owners to do likewise.

Thanks Danno...... Now what to do with that gargantuan seat tube? Hacksaw anyone?
 

·
Just another FOC'er
Joined
·
2,222 Posts
KRob said:
This is a good point.... but manufacturers don't publish this number, do they? I'll have to measure this on my bike and get some Large and Medium 6.6 owners to do likewise.
No they don't spec that, but it would be nice if they did. The problem with the TT measurement is that it's really tied to seat tube angle. I've got a couple bikes with the same TT measurement, but one measures 27.5 BB to HT and the other 29. The bike with the 29 has a steeper ST.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,753 Posts
I am 6ft with a 33.5 inseam, I wouldn't even consider the medium
it would have to be the large, and I like a bike that's on the compact size as I like something I can whip around..

Krob, one thing to bear in mind, these bikes have longer forks and taller headtubes, so, even if the eff tt is about the same as your HH it will feel much shorter as it puts you in a much more upright position...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,661 Posts
HoJo said:
I measured my Med 6.6. The TT it is 22.8" effective, parallel to the ground, from center on HT to center of seatpost as close as I can measure it. My Headtube angle and seat tube angle are 1 degree steeper with a Nixon & flush headset than published measured at 69.5 and 74. The BB is a little taller measured at 14" with Kenda Blue Groove 2.35" (tall tires). My bud just a got a BRG 6.6 Med, built up with a 36 Talas and a flush headset. His angles are 69 and 73.5 with the Talas fully extended. As noted in the shock forum the 36 Talas is running shorter than the full 6" travel. I measured the crown to axle on both forks, Nixon was 20.5", 36 Talas was only 1/2" taller at 21". We are thinking the 36 Van will set this up at 68-68.5 HA and a 73-73.5 SA, if some one wants a more stable set-up.
Hope this info helps.
You may have read my thoughts on this bike. To recap it has recalibrated my thoughts on long travel trail bikes. I did not believe you could have plush long travel and great pedaling in the same package. Thanks to Beth and Charles at Hammerhead for the great ride.
HoJo
HoJo, your HA and SA measurements seem a bit odd or I don't know which fork Intense used to calculate then. They publish the 6.6 to be 68.5 degrees HA and 73 SA with supposedly with a Nixon 518mm AtoC fork. Your buds 36 Talas at 21" (525mm) and flush head set should have the same numbers or at least not steeper! What did you use to measure the 69 HA and 73.5 SA? I'm asking because I find the 6.6 interesting but if it is even steeper than the published numbers then it is too much XC for my needs. Maybe Intense used a 540-550mm AtoC fork to get their number and not a Nixon 518mm. I which all manufacturers were as nice as SantaCruz and publish all the info necessary to understand the geometry numbers.

Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
BanzaiRider,

Either they used a different fork, than my 2005 Nixon or maybe a std headset, but the angles on my 6.6 are very close to 69.5/74. I use a contractors protractor, it measures 360 degrees in 1 degree increments, so when I quote 69.5 it's between the 69 and the 70. I measure it on a level floor, flip the bike each way to verify, and in the case of my bike multiple times over a few days. I'm a bit of the anal type and measured top tube, head angle, seat angle, BB height and wheel base on all my bikes multiple times to insure I didn't screw up.
Unlike some bikes made in So Cal the numbers for Intense are as published except for the angles.
I was surprised when the 6.6 with the 36 Talas measured only 1/2 degree slacker. That caused me to measure the A/C on each fork. I did not remove the wheel and do a real A/C measurement, but put a tape on each as they sat side by side wheels attached. My A/Cs for each fork is maybe a little off, but I'm confident the difference between the two is a 1/2". Which confirms the 1/2 deg angle difference.
There are a lot of options to slacken the angles by 1/2 or 1 degree. Use a normal headset would slacken the angles by 1/2 degree, or use a fork with a bigger A/C like a Travis or a 36 Van. I'm thinking of using a std bottom race and a zero stack top race for just that reason.

Hope this helps
HoJo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,661 Posts
HoJo said:
BanzaiRider,

Either they used a different fork, than my 2005 Nixon or maybe a std headset, but the angles on my 6.6 are very close to 69.5/74. I use a contractors protractor, it measures 360 degrees in 1 degree increments, so when I quote 69.5 it's between the 69 and the 70. I measure it on a level floor, flip the bike each way to verify, and in the case of my bike multiple times over a few days. I'm a bit of the anal type and measured top tube, head angle, seat angle, BB height and wheel base on all my bikes multiple times to insure I didn't screw up.
Unlike some bikes made in So Cal the numbers for Intense are as published except for the angles.
I was surprised when the 6.6 with the 36 Talas measured only 1/2 degree slacker. That caused me to measure the A/C on each fork. I did not remove the wheel and do a real A/C measurement, but put a tape on each as they sat side by side wheels attached. My A/Cs for each fork is maybe a little off, but I'm confident the difference between the two is a 1/2". Which confirms the 1/2 deg angle difference.
There are a lot of options to slacken the angles by 1/2 or 1 degree. Use a normal headset would slacken the angles by 1/2 degree, or use a fork with a bigger A/C like a Travis or a 36 Van. I'm thinking of using a std bottom race and a zero stack top race for just that reason.

Hope this helps
HoJo
Hey HoJo, nice stuff, I like geometry geeks like you, I'm probably like that also! hahaha. I'm a bit sad about your numbers because I have a Marzo AM1 at the moment which is 538mm AtoC compared to your Nixon at 512mm. So based on your numbers, if I were to use my AM1 and flush headset, I would get around 68.5 HA and 73 SA, which is a tiny bit more XC than I would like but at the same time it can be a benefit. For sure it does mean that this bike will have quite a tendency to feel XC with a fork that has less then 540mm AtoC like the Nixon and Pike. However, it also means that with this frame, one has a possibility of installing a fork like the Marzo 66, Travis,... and still have a bike that does a very descent job climbing and in tight singletrack, unlike the Nomad which becomes too raked with these forks.

Don't you feel that the 6.6 is a bit on the steep side with your Nixon and those angles (69.5HA - 74SA)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Get A Medium!!

I'm 6" tall with a 33" inseam. I too had a dilemma as to what size to buy but eventually went for a medium with a Fox 36R TALAS fork. It rocks :D . I use a 100mm stem with the seat most of the way back on the rails. Climbing is fantastic, way better than my '01 Single Pivot Rift Zone.

If you want to sit down an spin up a long steep climb it is easier to wind the forks down, but it will climb the steep stuff fine with the forks extended too. You may just have to stnd up for the really steep bits.

Going downhill is out of this world, and the ability to put the seat way down on the Medium really allows you to throw the bike around.

Gat a Medium!!

Si
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top