Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Warrior
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I am considering buying a bike that has an effective reach length of 29 inches (24-in effective top tube length plus 5-in stem), measured in the way that Wrench Science does. According to Wrench Science, I should be getting one that has a 27-in reach.

What do you think, should I keep looking, or is 2-inches close enough - seems like 2-inches is pretty close?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,982 Posts
Tobman said:
I am considering buying a bike that has an effective reach length of 29 inches (24-in effective top tube length plus 5-in stem), measured in the way that Wrench Science does. According to Wrench Science, I should be getting one that has a 27-in reach.

What do you think, should I keep looking, or is 2-inches close enough - seems like 2-inches is pretty close?
We don't have enough information to give you a good answer.

A lot depends on whether the bike is for XC, or FR or DH...whatever. If the WS recommendatin is for XC, then it will put you in an aggressive position to start with. If it's 2" longer than recommended, then it will be really aggrssive. You'll be way stretched out.

The standard WS recommendation may be too stretched-out for you.
 

·
Warrior
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Cross-Country

It is a cross-country bike (Rocky Mountain ETSX-70, large) and it actually has an effective reach 1 inch shorter than my current cross-country bike (Trek Y11, large).

To be more exact, the WS recommendation is for 71 cm and the bike measures 73.66 cms, which is actually only 1.04 inches different, not the 2 inches I stated above. So it should be no big deal to move the seat foward a bit (which does not affect the reach measurement) and get a slightly shorter stem. The next size down had a frame size too small and the seat tube was maxed out, so the large frame is the right frame size for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,982 Posts
Tobman said:
It is a cross-country bike (Rocky Mountain ETSX-70, large) and it actually has an effective reach 1 inch shorter than my current cross-country bike (Trek Y11, large).

To be more exact, the WS recommendation is for 71 cm and the bike measures 73.66 cms, which is actually only 1.04 inches different, not the 2 inches I stated above. So it should be no big deal to move the seat foward a bit (which does not affect the reach measurement) and get a slightly shorter stem. The next size down had a frame size too small and the seat tube was maxed out, so the large frame is the right frame size for me.
You have to be careful when compaing efective reach, or even effective top tube. If you are comparing bikes with the exact same geometry, then it's ok to compare. If the geometry changes, then all bets are off.

The issue involves the seat position relative to the effective seat tube height. If you have to raise the seat and the ST angle is slacker than a previous bike, the effective reach is increased. The converse is also true.

Does WS take into account the seat position when calculating reach....or just the effective top tube length?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,257 Posts
Tobman said:
I am considering buying a bike that has an effective reach length of 29 inches (24-in effective top tube length plus 5-in stem), measured in the way that Wrench Science does. According to Wrench Science, I should be getting one that has a 27-in reach.

What do you think, should I keep looking, or is 2-inches close enough - seems like 2-inches is pretty close?
wrench science is NOT the final word in bike fit. once you accept this simple fact, life becomes much easier. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
Tobman said:
I am considering buying a bike that has an effective reach length of 29 inches (24-in effective top tube length plus 5-in stem), measured in the way that Wrench Science does. According to Wrench Science, I should be getting one that has a 27-in reach.

What do you think, should I keep looking, or is 2-inches close enough - seems like 2-inches is pretty close?
What's your height/inseam?

5"+ stems are pretty long, usually 100-120mm (4-4.75") is what I see spec'd on new bikes. If you're looking a hardtail XC race bike then 130+ might be appropriate.

However 2" is a pretty big difference, you probably should go the next size down (~1" less TT) and smaller stem (~100mm/4"). You'll get more standover and maneuverability. I'd go into a few LBS and sit on/ride bikes with a 24" TT (they'll have shorter stems).
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top