"It's interesting how important height and weight are to a review, but how little they get talked about. Read reviews where one tester is heavier and one is lighter, and it can almost sound like 2 different bikes in certain scenarios."
THIS so much. Drives me crazy we don't reference sizing by where our body parts land in space on a bike. It's why most reviews provide little value from the perspective of determining if the reviewed bike would be suitable for ones use. Body morphology is too unique. Unfortunately most bike seat tubes are curved nowadays and unless you can get the offset of that tube its tough to make certain important considerations about seated position which impact cockpit length etc. I encourage folks to download an app like Rattlecad which does have the ability to play around with offset and every other number including considering fork sag on hardtails. For full sus X3 is worth its weight for sure.
A recent personal experience of this important measure; after having a custom HT built and drinking the steep seat angle koolaid, I thought I'd try a 75.5 static based off a previous ride where it seamed thats what I was riding, that was a mistake. At 5'8 with a short torso and long femur its only comfortable when I'm pointed uphill. What I should have measured is given the same saddle (and crank length) how far away is the nose from the BB at comfortable pedalling height? I no longer give a crap about listed angles I just want to know where my saddle will land relative to the BB at my ideal pedalling height. Then I can determine; at this height is the rear centre too short for climbing without feeling like I'm wrestling a rhino at the front of the bike? Or, will the cockpit be too long or too short? Needs an article with sample bikes drawn up.
Feb. 12, 2021, 10:25 a.m. - Michael
"It's interesting how important height and weight are to a review, but how little they get talked about. Read reviews where one tester is heavier and one is lighter, and it can almost sound like 2 different bikes in certain scenarios." THIS so much. Drives me crazy we don't reference sizing by where our body parts land in space on a bike. It's why most reviews provide little value from the perspective of determining if the reviewed bike would be suitable for ones use. Body morphology is too unique. Unfortunately most bike seat tubes are curved nowadays and unless you can get the offset of that tube its tough to make certain important considerations about seated position which impact cockpit length etc. I encourage folks to download an app like Rattlecad which does have the ability to play around with offset and every other number including considering fork sag on hardtails. For full sus X3 is worth its weight for sure. A recent personal experience of this important measure; after having a custom HT built and drinking the steep seat angle koolaid, I thought I'd try a 75.5 static based off a previous ride where it seamed thats what I was riding, that was a mistake. At 5'8 with a short torso and long femur its only comfortable when I'm pointed uphill. What I should have measured is given the same saddle (and crank length) how far away is the nose from the BB at comfortable pedalling height? I no longer give a crap about listed angles I just want to know where my saddle will land relative to the BB at my ideal pedalling height. Then I can determine; at this height is the rear centre too short for climbing without feeling like I'm wrestling a rhino at the front of the bike? Or, will the cockpit be too long or too short? Needs an article with sample bikes drawn up.