This. Alllll of this. Reach alone, is bullshit for sizing. It doesn’t take into account SA or stack height. HA also affects reach, but I don’t think that it’s considered in the reach measurement.Without getting too deep, you need to look at the whole package and not 1 or 2 measurements. I see where your coming from though since your experience is limited, whereas others that have already owned several bikes will most likely know their favorite reach number overall.
I think this is a great tool to do comparisons Geometry Geeks
Exactly and this drives me nuts! I have to size up on all bikes now at 6'1" to find a bike that I can sit and peddle comfortably. A lot of brands do not even make a bike that I can get to fit in their XL. I now exclusively have to look at small mfgs to get a desired bike, just ordered a Vassago that is perfect in a size large. For taller riders then myself, it must be a real problem.Reach is base length when standing.
ETT is base length when seated.
Modern bikes tend to have long reach and short ETT. Older bikes it is the oppposite.
That's odd, I'm ~6'3" and I feel like finally it's easy to find bikes that fit me.For taller riders then myself, it must be a real problem.
How is that possible? Todays medium is 15 years ago XL. I used to ride XL and now L, which is still a lot longer.Exactly and this drives me nuts! I have to size up on all bikes now at 6'1" to find a bike that I can sit and peddle comfortably. A lot of brands do not even make a bike that I can get to fit in their XL. I now exclusively have to look at small mfgs to get a desired bike, just ordered a Vassago that is perfect in a size large. For taller riders then myself, it must be a real problem.
100% agree. Although bikes have gotten longer, seat tubes have gotten steeper, head tubes have gotten slacker, stems have gotten shorter and we now almost all use dropper posts so the setback post is all but a thing of the past. I have found all those things result in what I like to call a shorter "cockpit" (the measurement from the tip of your saddle to the centerline of the handlebar) for a given size compared to bikes from 4-5 years ago.. To me, for the type of endurance/marathon riding I do which is seated and pedaling a large percentage of the time I think "cockpit" length is the most important dimension. Comfort while seated and pedaling is priority #1. I am lucky enough to know AutoCAD so when i was shopping for my current bike I actually made a sketch of several bikes in size L and XL to try and figure out which would fit best. I'm a smidge over 6 foot tall and ended up with an XL Ripley and could not be happier with that decision. Prior to that I've never owned an XL bike in my 20+ years of cycling. YMMV.Exactly and this drives me nuts! I have to size up on all bikes now at 6'1" to find a bike that I can sit and peddle comfortably. A lot of brands do not even make a bike that I can get to fit in their XL. I now exclusively have to look at small mfgs to get a desired bike, just ordered a Vassago that is perfect in a size large. For taller riders then myself, it must be a real problem.
Because you different style of riding then I do, I sometimes I have a 2 hour seated climb or longer.How is that possible? Todays medium is 15 years ago XL. I used to ride XL and now L, which is still a lot longer.
If you think the seat is too close to the front, you can always move it backwards. And also use the same stem from decades ago.
That is not true, for power output for XC racing it is critical your saddle to pedal position for power output. Your fit must start there, you cannot just move the seat around to make your cockpit longer. Again as I said, if you doing Enduro or DH that does not apply as you have noted.ETT is coincidental, it depends a lot on the design of the frame, especially with full suspension bikes where the TT does not run through the bottom bracket. It also does not take into account the fact that mountain bikers stand on the bike a lot.
When you are standing the position of the seat is not really relevant (just a little).
Reach is the correct way to measure the length of the bike, based on your ergonomic touch points, not based on frame design. It is much more true to fit. Bikes with the same reach and stem should feel identical when you stand on the pedals. Bikes with the same TT, either horizontal or actual can have actual different length, so as a fit number it is an approximation. The second number to look at is effective seat tube angle. This is slightly less important because you can change the seat position.
Measuring bikes using seat tube and top tube is some of the poor legacies we have from road bikes and poor engineering of mountain bikes in their early years. Speaking of, road bikes also should stop using tubes for sizing and adopt reach/stack/effective seat angle.
this. I have absolutely no time for bike fit advice that is limited to how the bike fits and handles when I am seated. seated pedaling fit is important, of course, but that's where MOST bike fitting advice stops — from online guides to professional bike fitters. most of the really fun and critical stuff happens when my butt is nowhere near the saddle. ETT is also still confusing because the seat tube angle is not consistent and sometimes is offset from the BB. I'm a big proponent of RAD sizing: distance from the BB to the grips. start there and adjust the saddle position so your body feels balanced when sitting. if the STA is too steep or slack to allow for the saddle to be placed in a position that makes me feel balanced after I have optimized the standing position, it's not a good bike for me.ETT is still very useful.
It tells you about the fit of the bike when you're seated.
Reach tells you about the fit of the bike when you're standing up.
Both dimensions are important for a mtb, because you're going to move between both positions. Other geometry measurements tell you other things about the bike, as well, so they're just as important.
ETT will still tell you how it will feel seated pedaling. It's not useless.Unforunately it was easier in the "old" days. Now EFF TT does not really tell you much because with LLS (long low slack) geometry the headtube angle changes the reach significantly without changing the effective top tube. So the reach and the stack are designed to give you some idea of fit without using TT or ST which are not reliable indicators of anything anymore.
Totally agree. For me l, at 6’3 as well, I finally feel like there are bikes that fit me. Still have yet to ever be on a bike that felt too big, however.That's odd, I'm ~6'3" and I feel like finally it's easy to find bikes that fit me.
