I have good experience with the Agent shorts, but the fit could be better. They bunched up a bit around the pocket zippers and exposed my knee a bit too much. But the shorts might be different to the pants.
Greg is an XXL guy at 196 cm if i'm not mistaken. L is well under 190 cm if you have an XXL bike in your lineup.
As for Norco's chainstays, they move the BB forwards and kill pedalling performance that way since they slacken out the seat tube angle for the riders that need it the steepest. At least that's how they used to do it, i hope they have changed their ways for the better.
I was really happy to see someone offering custom clothing and shorts in different lengths. I was sad to see the medium comes in 14" as the longest option. I currently ride 15" shorts and even those are too short!
Thanks for the info. L through XXL pants should be 83 cm inseam (32 3/4 inch). I'm running the shorts that have a 15 inch inseam (the Agent ones, but i also have a pair of Ambush shorts and a Dakine Derail, which are all 15 inch inseam) and they are on the short side, to even prevent pad gap on my thigh they would need to be 16 or ideally even 17 inch :/
Looked at the 7mesh stuff, holy cow, finally some long enough shorts (mostly). But, holy somethingelseentirely the pricing?! :D
EDIT: i have a to-the-floor inseam of around 91 cm. And i'm an M waist size :/
That would be a relatively good measurement, but you also have wildly different offsets to think about then.
Plus this is mainly an issue for taller riders, who get sat much farther to the back. It could be an issue for smaller riders as well, who effectively get an even steeper seat tube angle, but given the rotation of the main frame due to differing sag values the issue is less pronounced.
Speaking of sag and climbing, seating further back over the rear axle makes changes in sag while climbing again even more pronounced for taller riders, where the actual angle gets even more slack (because you set the sag with the bike being level).
I'd say for anything that has to be pedalled up the hill (this of course includes enduro class of bikes), the primary geometry considerations should be cockpit geometry while being sat down. We spend much less time descending to optimize purely for that compared to pedalling up the hill.
Then i wouldn't be surprised if having more or less the same weight distributions of front vs. rear would bring the effective ride quality comparing different sizes of frames more in-line with each other. Maybe that would mean a steeper seat tube angle for the XL frame, which would be then sagged lower while climbing, even longer top tubes, maybe even longer chainstays (but not the Norco way, where the move the BB forwards on larger bikes to lengthen them, thereby again decreasing the seat tube angle).
It might even mean different suspension geometries between sizes!
Composites are not immune to fatigue failures. I'm beginning to wonder if there are any materials besides steel that have a fatigue limit (a stress value under which the material can handle unlimited cycles).
As for what they take, aluminium is strong enough (apparently) and light enough when designed correctly while being much, much cheaper. Which makes it good enough. Also, regarding repairing carbon, i'd personally think thoroughly as to what i would have repaired and what not. I would probably inquire about a crash replacement before anything else.