Chainstay vs reach, size small bikes

sickshredsled
Profile picture for user sickshredsled
Posts
14
Joined
6/30/2023
Location
Seattle, WA US
Fantasy
2702nd
sickshredsled

Just wondering of people have feedback on size small bikes with chainstays longer than the reach.

I currently ride an s2 2020 specialized enduro with 442 chainstay and 437 reach. Does anyone have experience comparing reach/chainstay lengths for shorter riders?

I'm 5'5 and wondering if I could handle a medium size better and corner better on one.

I'd be curious to hear from other shorter people. Most reviews and discussions are all on bigger bikes.

 

|
kcyeeto
Profile picture for user kcyeeto
Posts
21
Joined
2/16/2022
Location
Liberty, MO US
kcyeeto 7/31/2023 9:09am
7/31/2023 9:09am

What stem are you running? I'm similar in height to you and currently own an s3 sj evo. I think the reach/chainstay on the evo/enduro are almost identical when paired with a 40MM stem and set in the long/low setting. I tend to think that bikes with longer (440-445) rear centers are easier to corner. I think most of what you are asking is about the reach-chainstay proportion and it is kind of weird on paper for the smaller sizes. But I don't think sizing up would necessarily make the bike turn better. You'd probably gain some straight line stability from the bigger wheelbase, but I don't think it would directly make the bike turn better. If you're wanting the bike to corner better-buy a mullet link and run a smaller back wheel. It'll make the bike way easier to lean and corner at speed.

sickshredsled
Profile picture for user sickshredsled
Posts
14
Joined
6/30/2023
Location
Seattle, WA US
Fantasy
2702nd
sickshredsled 7/31/2023 9:47am
7/31/2023 9:47am

I'm running a 40mm stem also. I think I might try a 50.

It would be cool to experiment with different chainstay lengths. I'm just conjecturing here but I wonder if the low anti rise and also long CS compared to the reach would cause the bike to pitch forward even more under braking.

I realize it's really not the bike but my own skill that is lacking, it's just something fun to think about. I never see any reviews or feedback for smaller bike sizes.

​​​​

1
kadenride
Profile picture for user kadenride
Posts
3
Joined
7/31/2023
Location
Sun praire, WI US
Fantasy
2040th
kadenride 7/31/2023 10:26am
7/31/2023 10:26am

I ride a size S1 160 Status with a 417mm reach and a 425mm chainstay and it corners quite well I don't think its much of a problem and is pretty common on DH bikes to have close to equal reach and Chainstay lengths even in larger sizes.  

1
kcyeeto
Profile picture for user kcyeeto
Posts
21
Joined
2/16/2022
Location
Liberty, MO US
kcyeeto 7/31/2023 1:58pm
7/31/2023 1:58pm

Have you tried the enduro as a mullet? I would imagine it would work pretty well for you. I think I'm similar height to you and I can't see myself going back to dual 29ers on anything except a full xc/light trailbike. I didn't realize how much better mullets turn until I set my bike up that way. 

 

sickshredsled
Profile picture for user sickshredsled
Posts
14
Joined
6/30/2023
Location
Seattle, WA US
Fantasy
2702nd
sickshredsled 7/31/2023 3:36pm
7/31/2023 3:36pm
kcyeeto wrote:
Have you tried the enduro as a mullet? I would imagine it would work pretty well for you. I think I'm similar height to you and...

Have you tried the enduro as a mullet? I would imagine it would work pretty well for you. I think I'm similar height to you and I can't see myself going back to dual 29ers on anything except a full xc/light trailbike. I didn't realize how much better mullets turn until I set my bike up that way. 

 

I have not. Don't have a 27.5 rear nor the link. I'd be curious to try it but at this point have already spent so much time/money swapping things around. Did you do it with the wrp link?

carlinojoevideo 7/31/2023 6:58pm
7/31/2023 6:58pm

So I used to really compare CS with reach and I learned that the more important number is the front center vs chainstay.

S2 Enduro

wheelbase: 1217

cs 442 

Front center 775

weight biased:

63.68% front

36.62% rear

In my opinion that’s a pretty stable, balanced bike for front and rear traction. But it depends what you, the riders wants out of the bike. Stable traction or loose and sliding around rear end.

“Generally, though, the longer the wheelbase the less the distribution of the rider’s weight is affected by braking, gradient changes or bumpy terrain. In this sense, a longer wheelbase increases stability; there’s a larger window between the rider’s weight being too far forward (pitching over the bars) or too far back (looping out). This can be a bad thing because it takes more effort to manual or nose-pivot.”

Lots of good information here;

https://www.bikeradar.com/features/the-ultimate-guide-to-bike-geometry-…


 

2
Nik Dommen
Profile picture for user Nik Dommen
Posts
2
Joined
2/19/2013
Location
Fairfax, CA US
Nik Dommen 7/31/2023 7:56pm
7/31/2023 7:56pm Edited Date/Time 7/31/2023 7:58pm
carlinojoevideo wrote:
So I used to really compare CS with reach and I learned that the more important number is the front center vs chainstay. S2 Enduro wheelbase...

So I used to really compare CS with reach and I learned that the more important number is the front center vs chainstay.

S2 Enduro

wheelbase: 1217

cs 442 

Front center 775

weight biased:

63.68% front

36.62% rear

In my opinion that’s a pretty stable, balanced bike for front and rear traction. But it depends what you, the riders wants out of the bike. Stable traction or loose and sliding around rear end.

“Generally, though, the longer the wheelbase the less the distribution of the rider’s weight is affected by braking, gradient changes or bumpy terrain. In this sense, a longer wheelbase increases stability; there’s a larger window between the rider’s weight being too far forward (pitching over the bars) or too far back (looping out). This can be a bad thing because it takes more effort to manual or nose-pivot.”

Lots of good information here;

https://www.bikeradar.com/features/the-ultimate-guide-to-bike-geometry-…


 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5R60JHJbxI&t=314s

I would agree with what you have said about the bike being well balanced. I look at front center to rear center ratio to get an idea of how a bike will handle. The front center/rear center ratio will help to explain cornering character. Smaller bikes tend to have better turn in, more front end grip and the wheels track in a closer arc when compared to larger sizes. From what I have experienced a front/rear center ratio of 1.8 handles relatively neutral. Moving towards 1.9 will have twitchier, less predictable, harder to manage handling and the front will run wide. Going down from 1.8 will give a much better front end grip and for me makes turning easier. I have ridden an s3 enduro for a year, then rode a s4 for a year. I much preferred the handling/cornering character of the S3 front/rear center ratio of 1.83. The downside of the s3 was that once I got the bars to the correct height to be comfortable, the reach shrank too much and the bike felt tiny(hanging off behind the rear axle). On the S4 front rear center ratio 1.88 my body position was much better (in front of the rear axle more centered) but I did not like the handling because the front wheel felt way out front, less predictable and harder to manage the traction. 

Long winded but my reason for sharing this is that i believe that for the most part smaller bikes will corner better and have a better balance. My follow up question would be what aspect of cornering are you aiming to improve? 

3
sickshredsled
Profile picture for user sickshredsled
Posts
14
Joined
6/30/2023
Location
Seattle, WA US
Fantasy
2702nd
sickshredsled 7/31/2023 8:49pm
7/31/2023 8:49pm

Thanks, this is really helpful!

I've never really looked at front center vs rear center so I'll look at that more. Really, I was just curious to hear other shorter riders experiences. I'm wondering what my next bike might be. Got my eyes on the Forbidden Dreadnought.

sickshredsled
Profile picture for user sickshredsled
Posts
14
Joined
6/30/2023
Location
Seattle, WA US
Fantasy
2702nd
sickshredsled 8/7/2023 11:42am
8/7/2023 11:42am
Nik Dommen wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5R60JHJbxI&t=314s I would agree with what you have said about the bike being well balanced. I look at front center to rear center ratio to get...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5R60JHJbxI&t=314s

I would agree with what you have said about the bike being well balanced. I look at front center to rear center ratio to get an idea of how a bike will handle. The front center/rear center ratio will help to explain cornering character. Smaller bikes tend to have better turn in, more front end grip and the wheels track in a closer arc when compared to larger sizes. From what I have experienced a front/rear center ratio of 1.8 handles relatively neutral. Moving towards 1.9 will have twitchier, less predictable, harder to manage handling and the front will run wide. Going down from 1.8 will give a much better front end grip and for me makes turning easier. I have ridden an s3 enduro for a year, then rode a s4 for a year. I much preferred the handling/cornering character of the S3 front/rear center ratio of 1.83. The downside of the s3 was that once I got the bars to the correct height to be comfortable, the reach shrank too much and the bike felt tiny(hanging off behind the rear axle). On the S4 front rear center ratio 1.88 my body position was much better (in front of the rear axle more centered) but I did not like the handling because the front wheel felt way out front, less predictable and harder to manage the traction. 

Long winded but my reason for sharing this is that i believe that for the most part smaller bikes will corner better and have a better balance. My follow up question would be what aspect of cornering are you aiming to improve? 

So here's where I'm coming from. I put on a 50mm stem and feel like I can weight the front and corner a better. My other bike is a transition spur medium with a 450mm reach. I really like that reach and handling of that bike and am wondering of i would like a similar reach on an enduro bike. I realize the geo and suspension on these two bikes are really different.

Suns_PSD
Profile picture for user Suns_PSD
Posts
186
Joined
10/7/2015
Location
Austin, TX US
Suns_PSD 8/16/2023 9:43am
8/16/2023 9:43am
carlinojoevideo wrote:
So I used to really compare CS with reach and I learned that the more important number is the front center vs chainstay. S2 Enduro wheelbase...

So I used to really compare CS with reach and I learned that the more important number is the front center vs chainstay.

S2 Enduro

wheelbase: 1217

cs 442 

Front center 775

weight biased:

63.68% front

36.62% rear

In my opinion that’s a pretty stable, balanced bike for front and rear traction. But it depends what you, the riders wants out of the bike. Stable traction or loose and sliding around rear end.

“Generally, though, the longer the wheelbase the less the distribution of the rider’s weight is affected by braking, gradient changes or bumpy terrain. In this sense, a longer wheelbase increases stability; there’s a larger window between the rider’s weight being too far forward (pitching over the bars) or too far back (looping out). This can be a bad thing because it takes more effort to manual or nose-pivot.”

Lots of good information here;

https://www.bikeradar.com/features/the-ultimate-guide-to-bike-geometry-…


 

Quick note: You swapped your F& R weight bias as the larger % is most certainly on the rear wheel. Your general theory, however, is absolutely on point.

 

So, for sure looking at front center is more relevant than just looking at Reach, because Reach alone doesn't consider front fork travel and HTA. For example, 435mm CS on my Mondraker Foxy had terrible front wheel traction, where the very nearly same geo but with a steeper HTA and a short fork on my Spur, it's adequate if not wonderful in that same regard.

 

I certainly know and understand that when cornering over lots of terrain we are standing. However, we are also sitting plenty in flat repeating turns. And for this reason, STA (as well as stem length) is a factor in there as well because it moves the center of gravity forward (or back). How to calculate this beyond just measuring an actual bike, I can't say.

 

That said, I bitch all of the time about short chainstays and their negative effects on front wheel traction, and therefore overall speed of the bike. No doubt exacerbated by my preference for larger bikes relative to my size.

 

My XL Relay (I'm 5'11" with long limbs) is the best handling, specifically turning, bike that I have ever ridden. I was getting squared away with an Avalanche Coil shock (on order) and took some actual weight measurements and this bike with me on it and the Relay has 58% of the weight on the rear end when I'm standing and 62% while seated. I haven't really measured other bikes, but I suspect that this bike approaching 50/ 50 is why it's so damn fast through the turns.

carlinojoevideo 8/18/2023 6:48pm
8/18/2023 6:48pm
carlinojoevideo wrote:
So I used to really compare CS with reach and I learned that the more important number is the front center vs chainstay. S2 Enduro wheelbase...

So I used to really compare CS with reach and I learned that the more important number is the front center vs chainstay.

S2 Enduro

wheelbase: 1217

cs 442 

Front center 775

weight biased:

63.68% front

36.62% rear

In my opinion that’s a pretty stable, balanced bike for front and rear traction. But it depends what you, the riders wants out of the bike. Stable traction or loose and sliding around rear end.

“Generally, though, the longer the wheelbase the less the distribution of the rider’s weight is affected by braking, gradient changes or bumpy terrain. In this sense, a longer wheelbase increases stability; there’s a larger window between the rider’s weight being too far forward (pitching over the bars) or too far back (looping out). This can be a bad thing because it takes more effort to manual or nose-pivot.”

Lots of good information here;

https://www.bikeradar.com/features/the-ultimate-guide-to-bike-geometry-…


 

Suns_PSD wrote:
Quick note: You swapped your F& R weight bias as the larger % is most certainly on the rear wheel. Your general theory, however, is absolutely...

Quick note: You swapped your F& R weight bias as the larger % is most certainly on the rear wheel. Your general theory, however, is absolutely on point.

 

So, for sure looking at front center is more relevant than just looking at Reach, because Reach alone doesn't consider front fork travel and HTA. For example, 435mm CS on my Mondraker Foxy had terrible front wheel traction, where the very nearly same geo but with a steeper HTA and a short fork on my Spur, it's adequate if not wonderful in that same regard.

 

I certainly know and understand that when cornering over lots of terrain we are standing. However, we are also sitting plenty in flat repeating turns. And for this reason, STA (as well as stem length) is a factor in there as well because it moves the center of gravity forward (or back). How to calculate this beyond just measuring an actual bike, I can't say.

 

That said, I bitch all of the time about short chainstays and their negative effects on front wheel traction, and therefore overall speed of the bike. No doubt exacerbated by my preference for larger bikes relative to my size.

 

My XL Relay (I'm 5'11" with long limbs) is the best handling, specifically turning, bike that I have ever ridden. I was getting squared away with an Avalanche Coil shock (on order) and took some actual weight measurements and this bike with me on it and the Relay has 58% of the weight on the rear end when I'm standing and 62% while seated. I haven't really measured other bikes, but I suspect that this bike approaching 50/ 50 is why it's so damn fast through the turns.

Hey, yes I swapped those Front and rear numbers!

How did you get %'s on your Relay of sitting vs standing?

Also what are the other numbers like wheelbase, CS and reach.  

Thank you!  Im trying an experiment with my Commencal V5. I went to a shorter reach headset and extended the CS to long.  Seeing if 6mm up front and 3mm in the rear can effect front end grip or if it's something that needs to come from the factory.  The best calculation I can get is 64.5% rear and 35.5% front.  Moving the flip chips only changes things by less than a %.

f.i.t.nj
Profile picture for user f.i.t.nj
Posts
20
Joined
3/7/2020
Location
Englishtown, NJ US
f.i.t.nj 8/19/2023 5:22am
8/19/2023 5:22am Edited Date/Time 8/19/2023 5:24am

5'4 rider here- I've been on everything from 425-500mm CS lengths with a varied amount of the front center/reach/stem combo's. Here' some of what I've learned over the last 12 years of experimenting with setup.

I definitely prefer bikes with 1.6-1.8 ratio depending on how long travel they are. The longer the travel the smaller of a ratio I prefer. 

Riding technique aside  (which is a huge component)- Your proportions effect your ability to weight the front wheel as much as the geo of the bike. I have a super short torso but my leg and arm length are about avg for someone 4-5inches taller than I. As a result, short reach bikes feel cramped to me but at the same time my ability to "cover' the front end with a lot of pressure isn't as good as it would be if my torso length was more proportional. 

Conversely, one of my riding buddies is exactly the opposite and gets along great with shorter CS bikes. Proportion isn't a be all end all of course, but it's not included in the debate over ideal front to rear weight distribution enough. I think it often goes unnoticed as a strong bias for short or long rear center preference. 

 

carlinojoevideo 8/19/2023 6:23am
8/19/2023 6:23am
f.i.t.nj wrote:
5'4 rider here- I've been on everything from 425-500mm CS lengths with a varied amount of the front center/reach/stem combo's. Here' some of what I've learned...

5'4 rider here- I've been on everything from 425-500mm CS lengths with a varied amount of the front center/reach/stem combo's. Here' some of what I've learned over the last 12 years of experimenting with setup.

I definitely prefer bikes with 1.6-1.8 ratio depending on how long travel they are. The longer the travel the smaller of a ratio I prefer. 

Riding technique aside  (which is a huge component)- Your proportions effect your ability to weight the front wheel as much as the geo of the bike. I have a super short torso but my leg and arm length are about avg for someone 4-5inches taller than I. As a result, short reach bikes feel cramped to me but at the same time my ability to "cover' the front end with a lot of pressure isn't as good as it would be if my torso length was more proportional. 

Conversely, one of my riding buddies is exactly the opposite and gets along great with shorter CS bikes. Proportion isn't a be all end all of course, but it's not included in the debate over ideal front to rear weight distribution enough. I think it often goes unnoticed as a strong bias for short or long rear center preference. 

 

What is 1.6-1.8 in % bias?

1
f.i.t.nj
Profile picture for user f.i.t.nj
Posts
20
Joined
3/7/2020
Location
Englishtown, NJ US
f.i.t.nj 8/19/2023 7:10am
8/19/2023 7:10am
f.i.t.nj wrote:
5'4 rider here- I've been on everything from 425-500mm CS lengths with a varied amount of the front center/reach/stem combo's. Here' some of what I've learned...

5'4 rider here- I've been on everything from 425-500mm CS lengths with a varied amount of the front center/reach/stem combo's. Here' some of what I've learned over the last 12 years of experimenting with setup.

I definitely prefer bikes with 1.6-1.8 ratio depending on how long travel they are. The longer the travel the smaller of a ratio I prefer. 

Riding technique aside  (which is a huge component)- Your proportions effect your ability to weight the front wheel as much as the geo of the bike. I have a super short torso but my leg and arm length are about avg for someone 4-5inches taller than I. As a result, short reach bikes feel cramped to me but at the same time my ability to "cover' the front end with a lot of pressure isn't as good as it would be if my torso length was more proportional. 

Conversely, one of my riding buddies is exactly the opposite and gets along great with shorter CS bikes. Proportion isn't a be all end all of course, but it's not included in the debate over ideal front to rear weight distribution enough. I think it often goes unnoticed as a strong bias for short or long rear center preference. 

 

carlinojoevideo wrote:

What is 1.6-1.8 in % bias?

Read a few posts up and watch Steve from Vorsprung's video linked above. You'll get a good understanding of the concept and see if it plays well with your own experience. I certainly has for my own. 

Suns_PSD
Profile picture for user Suns_PSD
Posts
186
Joined
10/7/2015
Location
Austin, TX US
Suns_PSD 8/21/2023 8:29am
8/21/2023 8:29am
carlinojoevideo wrote:
So I used to really compare CS with reach and I learned that the more important number is the front center vs chainstay. S2 Enduro wheelbase...

So I used to really compare CS with reach and I learned that the more important number is the front center vs chainstay.

S2 Enduro

wheelbase: 1217

cs 442 

Front center 775

weight biased:

63.68% front

36.62% rear

In my opinion that’s a pretty stable, balanced bike for front and rear traction. But it depends what you, the riders wants out of the bike. Stable traction or loose and sliding around rear end.

“Generally, though, the longer the wheelbase the less the distribution of the rider’s weight is affected by braking, gradient changes or bumpy terrain. In this sense, a longer wheelbase increases stability; there’s a larger window between the rider’s weight being too far forward (pitching over the bars) or too far back (looping out). This can be a bad thing because it takes more effort to manual or nose-pivot.”

Lots of good information here;

https://www.bikeradar.com/features/the-ultimate-guide-to-bike-geometry-…


 

Suns_PSD wrote:
Quick note: You swapped your F& R weight bias as the larger % is most certainly on the rear wheel. Your general theory, however, is absolutely...

Quick note: You swapped your F& R weight bias as the larger % is most certainly on the rear wheel. Your general theory, however, is absolutely on point.

 

So, for sure looking at front center is more relevant than just looking at Reach, because Reach alone doesn't consider front fork travel and HTA. For example, 435mm CS on my Mondraker Foxy had terrible front wheel traction, where the very nearly same geo but with a steeper HTA and a short fork on my Spur, it's adequate if not wonderful in that same regard.

 

I certainly know and understand that when cornering over lots of terrain we are standing. However, we are also sitting plenty in flat repeating turns. And for this reason, STA (as well as stem length) is a factor in there as well because it moves the center of gravity forward (or back). How to calculate this beyond just measuring an actual bike, I can't say.

 

That said, I bitch all of the time about short chainstays and their negative effects on front wheel traction, and therefore overall speed of the bike. No doubt exacerbated by my preference for larger bikes relative to my size.

 

My XL Relay (I'm 5'11" with long limbs) is the best handling, specifically turning, bike that I have ever ridden. I was getting squared away with an Avalanche Coil shock (on order) and took some actual weight measurements and this bike with me on it and the Relay has 58% of the weight on the rear end when I'm standing and 62% while seated. I haven't really measured other bikes, but I suspect that this bike approaching 50/ 50 is why it's so damn fast through the turns.

carlinojoevideo wrote:
Hey, yes I swapped those Front and rear numbers! How did you get %'s on your Relay of sitting vs standing? Also what are the other...

Hey, yes I swapped those Front and rear numbers!

How did you get %'s on your Relay of sitting vs standing?

Also what are the other numbers like wheelbase, CS and reach.  

Thank you!  Im trying an experiment with my Commencal V5. I went to a shorter reach headset and extended the CS to long.  Seeing if 6mm up front and 3mm in the rear can effect front end grip or if it's something that needs to come from the factory.  The best calculation I can get is 64.5% rear and 35.5% front.  Moving the flip chips only changes things by less than a %.

I just used a bathroom scale & put a book under the other tire to match the height of the scale.

Had my kid write down all the weights (sitting/ standing/ front/ back), and then I transferred them to percents.

The bike is an XL Relay set up as a mullet. Going off memory, Reach is around 505mm, CS length around 448 I think. Truth is that I have some none stock parts that juggle all of those geo numbers up a bit. A 2.5 rear tire and the Mezzer fork definitely alters the geo from stock.

carlinojoevideo 8/21/2023 9:47am
8/21/2023 9:47am
Suns_PSD wrote:
Quick note: You swapped your F& R weight bias as the larger % is most certainly on the rear wheel. Your general theory, however, is absolutely...

Quick note: You swapped your F& R weight bias as the larger % is most certainly on the rear wheel. Your general theory, however, is absolutely on point.

 

So, for sure looking at front center is more relevant than just looking at Reach, because Reach alone doesn't consider front fork travel and HTA. For example, 435mm CS on my Mondraker Foxy had terrible front wheel traction, where the very nearly same geo but with a steeper HTA and a short fork on my Spur, it's adequate if not wonderful in that same regard.

 

I certainly know and understand that when cornering over lots of terrain we are standing. However, we are also sitting plenty in flat repeating turns. And for this reason, STA (as well as stem length) is a factor in there as well because it moves the center of gravity forward (or back). How to calculate this beyond just measuring an actual bike, I can't say.

 

That said, I bitch all of the time about short chainstays and their negative effects on front wheel traction, and therefore overall speed of the bike. No doubt exacerbated by my preference for larger bikes relative to my size.

 

My XL Relay (I'm 5'11" with long limbs) is the best handling, specifically turning, bike that I have ever ridden. I was getting squared away with an Avalanche Coil shock (on order) and took some actual weight measurements and this bike with me on it and the Relay has 58% of the weight on the rear end when I'm standing and 62% while seated. I haven't really measured other bikes, but I suspect that this bike approaching 50/ 50 is why it's so damn fast through the turns.

carlinojoevideo wrote:
Hey, yes I swapped those Front and rear numbers! How did you get %'s on your Relay of sitting vs standing? Also what are the other...

Hey, yes I swapped those Front and rear numbers!

How did you get %'s on your Relay of sitting vs standing?

Also what are the other numbers like wheelbase, CS and reach.  

Thank you!  Im trying an experiment with my Commencal V5. I went to a shorter reach headset and extended the CS to long.  Seeing if 6mm up front and 3mm in the rear can effect front end grip or if it's something that needs to come from the factory.  The best calculation I can get is 64.5% rear and 35.5% front.  Moving the flip chips only changes things by less than a %.

Suns_PSD wrote:
I just used a bathroom scale & put a book under the other tire to match the height of the scale. Had my kid write down...

I just used a bathroom scale & put a book under the other tire to match the height of the scale.

Had my kid write down all the weights (sitting/ standing/ front/ back), and then I transferred them to percents.

The bike is an XL Relay set up as a mullet. Going off memory, Reach is around 505mm, CS length around 448 I think. Truth is that I have some none stock parts that juggle all of those geo numbers up a bit. A 2.5 rear tire and the Mezzer fork definitely alters the geo from stock.

Very cool!  I will try this.  I watch the Vorsprung video to get the %'s.  Seems like all my settings are around 1.80 - 1.85.  Even compared to my Trek Session I was around 1.85ish.

An interesting point in the Vorsprung video is the balence at 50% travel.  On my Commencal V5 frame, the rear axel goes reward the first 50% of travel, about 10mm which would change my ratio from 1.80 to 1.75.  But this is also not calculating the reduction of wheelbase as the fork compresses. So I'll need to open up the kinematics model and get some answers!

1

Post a reply to: Chainstay vs reach, size small bikes