Depends on what type of riding the bike is for and what type of bike it is. Enduro I tend to prefer a bigger longer bike. Trail/fun bike? Smaller so I can toss it around easier. XC bike? Usually have longer seat tubes and I have short legs so I try to balance out my desire for a longer bike with is the dropper going to have to be really short to be usable? 435mm+ seat tube and I'll need a dropper shorter than in the 130-140mm range. Gravel bikes? again depends on the seat tube as more exposed seat tube can be more comfortable but then the smaller one might have toe overlap. but I also like larger triablges to fit more bags and water bottles. So the answer is it depends.

 

Medium bike/shorter stem

 

Yeah if I am looking for endurance/comfort/stability, it's larger frame shorter stem, opposite if I'm interested in something more responsive or shorter rides.

That or you could find another frame that fits between those two sizes.

 

Most biikes are now designed around 30 to 50mm stems. I guess as long as you don't need to go beyond those specs...you should be ok. Thing about sizing up is that if the bike is too long...you're stuck. There aren't many stem manufacturers that go shorter than 30mm. I see a lot of bikes with their saddles slammed all the way forward, already with a super short stem. If you're on the small and need to run a 60+ mm stem with the saddle slammed all the way back...then it might be too short.

 

Thanks for the answers. Although sometimes I take complicated mountain trails, let's say that 80% of the time I go on asphalt or "green roads" as they are called in my country. They are mostly not too difficult mountain routes that can be done with the family, although some can be quite long. I also planned to do the Camino de Santiago one day, which is many kilometers and a comfortable bike is preferable.

 

I would factor in wheelbase as the decision maker not longer vs shorter stem. If you want a more playful bike go shorter wheelbase. If you want more stability at speed go longer.

Another benefit of smaller frame longer stem would be a lighter frame but ultimately I would be focusing on which wheelbase you would prefer.

 

Medium/short all day long.

 

Assuming we are talking about a normal mountain bike, used for mountain biking, I'd choose the size that has your stem between, 40-50mms long, as that's the sweet spot.

 

Big difference between +/-1 or 2cm on the stem. For me having to go +/- 1cm is an acceptable compromise, 2cm means the frame is too small/big. I went from 40mm to 45mm because I wanted more weight on the front and it made a noticeable difference. So 2cm is huge.

As stated above, take wheelbase in consideration. If you want to dive deeper, consider front/rear centre ratio as well. Some frames get longer chainstays for the larger sizes, others have a fixed length across the range. This can mean some sizes are not as balanced as others.

 

Big difference between +/-1 or 2cm on the stem. For me having to go +/- 1cm is an acceptable compomise, 2cm means the frame is too small/big. I went from 40mm to 45mm because I wanted more weight on the front and it made a noticeable difference. So 2cm is huge.

2cm wasn't necessarily an excessive change to mtb stem length a couple decades ago. but now that mtbs are longer to start with and tend to come with pretty short stems, I agree that 1cm is an acceptable adjustment without undo effects on other aspects of fit or handling.

If you're talking 2cm, you're pretty much looking at a different size, anyway.

Pick the size you need to make the least adjustment to. If a particular brand doesn't offer any sizes that give you that, then look at a different brand that does (and meets your other criteria).

 

Buy the right size bike.

 

I will take no handlebar/no stem for 500, @ilmfat

 

Many riders are in between sizes. I could have gone S or M, I went M but I wonder if S with 50mm stem would have been better? In the end my feet and hands are in the same place so it really comes down to wheelbase. I can live with either so I dont' over think it. Because I'm running double 27" with short stays the longer size M wheelbase is likely the best. I would be fine with even more bias towards play with a shorter wheelbase as well. If I had double 29 or MX I would go shorter wheelbase to liven things up. That's my personal preference so take it for what it's worth.

 

Back in the old days/ old style geo, I would 100% size up, but now that modern geo bikes have become so long, I think I would opt for a smaller frame with a 10mm longer stem. < This is for typical trail/xc riding, not enduro/steep riding.

If you need more than +/-10mm stem to get comfortable, you probably bought the wrong size, or have some atypical body proportions.

 

Back in the old days/ old style geo, I would 100% size up, but now that modern geo bikes have become so long, I think I would opt for a smaller frame with a 10mm longer stem. < This is for typical trail/xc riding, not enduro/steep riding.

If you need more than +/-10mm stem to get comfortable, you probably bought the wrong size, or have some atypical body proportions.

Totally, though I would consider up to 20mm Just in the stem and another 5mm or more in the bar geo/stack. Just back sweep alone can be 5mm then there's stack to further dial in the distance between hands and feet. People get hung up on a frame's actual reach number but all I care about is the distance between my hands and feet. Between stem length, back sweep, and stack most of us can put our hands and feet in the same spots on two sizes. Given how stretched bikes are I would typically go down a size. My current frame has pretty conservative numbers (revel rail 27) so size M made sense.

 

Thanks for the opinions, I will take them into account.

I'm not going to use the bike in overly technical areas and I plan to do routes of many kilometers, so maybe the medium size would be better than the small?

 

For long distance weight matters. Smaller frame cuts weight. Longer wheelbase is really about stability at speed. It's not really doing much for you when talking about covering distance.

The main reason bikes today are so much heavier than they used to be is because everything is supersized. Frames, rims/hubs/tires, cassettes, derailleurs, shocks.... Only thing that's smaller thus lighter is cranks though many still run 170 for some odd reason even though bikes have been low riders for 10 years now.

Many metric sized shocks on trail bikes are as big as shocks used to be on 180mm FR bikes back in the day. Making everything bigger adds up. The biggest component is the frame. Reducing its size is the best way to cut weight without reducing durability. If it was me looking for a bike to cover miles I would go with the longer stem and shorter frame. That said, I wouldn't over prioritize frame weight. Fit is the most important but if S or M ends up being 6 of half a dozen for you I would go smaller all day long.

 

For long distance weight matters. Smaller frame cuts weight. Longer wheelbase is really about stability at speed. It's not really doing much for you when talking about covering distance.

The main reason bikes today are so much heavier than they used to be is because everything is supersized. Frames, rims/hubs/tires, cassettes, derailleurs, shocks.... Only thing that's smaller thus lighter is cranks though many still run 170 for some odd reason even though bikes have been low riders for 10 years now.

Many metric sized shocks on trail bikes are as big as shocks used to be on 180mm FR bikes back in the day. Making everything bigger adds up. The biggest component is the frame. Reducing its size is the best way to cut weight without reducing durability. If it was me looking for a bike to cover miles I would go with the longer stem and shorter frame. That said, I wouldn't over prioritize frame weight. Fit is the most important but if S or M ends up being 6 of half a dozen for you I would go smaller all day long.

Disagree. A smaller frame only has less tubing in the MIDDLE of its length, where it's thin-walled and lightest. All the joints, pivots & reinforced areas are the same. Some even MORE beefy (a really short head tube, for example, has to endure more leverage from a big, beefy fork), and thus weigh more.

The BEST way to make a bike feel and handle "lighter" is by making weight savings in the wheels. Today's wheels are VERY HEAVY! 2.5" tires with thick sidewalls, 4 oz. of sealant and wide, beefy rims (at the outermost radius, even worse) mean you've got a TON of weight to begin with, X times as much when it's rotating. Many companies use really cheap wheels to save cost and hit price points. This makes the wheels even heavier. Putting a lighter wheelset/tire combo on a medium bike will feel WAY LIGHTER than than a small bike with stock wheels. Make them XC wheels and your weight savings improve that much more.

Fit is the number one consideration when deciding frame size, not inconsequential weight savings.

 

Ok thanks for the opinion. I'll put on the two sizes again and see what sensations I have. I think I was comfortable in both.

Another reason why I preferred a medium frame is also for aesthetic reasons. I have the seat at a height of about 68cm from the bottom bracket axle, and with sizes S having a seat tube length of about 38-40cm, I would have to expose the seatpost by about 22-23cm (not counting the saddle itself) and not I like how so much of the seat post is exposed.
I also find that very small frames don't look as good with 29" wheels.

 

Does the small frame fit a water bottle in the triangle?

 

OP, have you considered shopping for a gravel bike instead for your use case?
It would be a lot better at covering long dirt road distances than a mountain bike.

 

I prefer mtb

 

This is the S size. I dont have photos of the M.
Both sizes S and M come with a 70mm stem.
I was thinking of taking the M and putting a 50mm stem?

 

This is the S size. I dont have photos of the M.
Both sizes S and M come with a 70mm stem.
I was thinking of taking the M and putting a 50mm stem?

View attachment 2130520
View attachment 2130519

That looks a little small to me. Go medium frame/short stem next.

 

Almost everyone is going to say get a larger frame and a shorter stem. This makes the bike more capable and safer mountain biking on aggressive terrain. Only a small percentage of my terrain is aggressive, and even that is tame compared to what some people ride every day. What I do have is a lot of tight switchbacks with no berms. With both my MTBs, I sized down with a longer stem to keep them nimble, and I think this may be the primary reason to size down. With my hardtail, I went as far as putting a 90mm stem on it. This stretches me out even farther, which is great because it spends most of its time grinding gravel these days. I feel no need to get a dedicated gravel bike.

Either way, for the use cases you describe, deciding whether to allocate 25cm of reach to your frame or your stem is not going to make a world of difference. I think you will be happy either way.

 

IMHO, that small looks too small.

Go medium. You’ll have more room in the cockpit, especially for your legs. It’ll climb better and be a more proportionate bike, in all handling aspects, for your size.

Years ago, I tried a medium, because that’s the size the shop and the manufacturer site said I needed. A couple years later, I went up to a large and enjoyed that bike so much more, because I had room to move around. I’m a size up, on my gravel bike, after trying the recommended size, as well.

 

Thanks I think I'll buy the medium size. Mainly I am hesitating between the Orbea Alma and the Trek Procaliber 6. Aesthetically, perhaps I like the Orbea more because it seems to have less slooping than the Procaliber, and I like the classic aesthetics.

 

I'm someone who is always in the middle of the med/lrg frames. The reach of the lrg's is usually perfect. But, the seat post of the med is required. Might give some thought as to what length dropper you can run on the bigger size as well as the overall length. I'd rather run a med frame with longer stem and fit a 170mm dropper, then a lrg and only fit a 140mm dropper.

 

I really don't think I'll ever use a dropper post. I don't usually go down very difficult areas where I need it, and on the few occasions when I do, I don't mind lowering the saddle manually and then raising it again.

 

I agree that in the photos you posted the bike looks a bit small for you.

 

I took this photos today with a size M. I think it fits me better than the S. Although I suppose I will remove the 70mm stem and put a 60mm or 50mm one (maybe 60mm because 50mm maybe is too short for a general use riding?)

 

That looks a whole lot better.

I’d rock the 70mm stem, for a few rides, to get a solid feeling for what it offers. If you have a 50mm, throw it in your backpack, just in case. Once you get some miles in, then, switch out the 70mm, so you have an immediate back-to-back comparison. If the 50mm ends up being too much, you’ll know a 60mm might be the perfect compromise.