When I bought it I hesitated with the M but the reach is 465mm so I got the L. So all in all a pretty good position for climbing, and still a very long reach for going down.ītw, despite the 77.5° seat angle, my saddle is as forward as possible.
You'd may end up with pretty much a urban ride position for the upper body but still with a very long reach.
My theory (which may suck^^) is that by steepening the effective seat angle to 80° without modifying the reach this would make the toptube about 15mm shorter, and so if the back gets straight enough to hold the upper body weight by itself then there would be no weight on the arms. Still, I'm thinking it could just be a bit better with a slightly more upward position and shorter toptube. To feel comfortable I had to rise the bars quite a bit (to compensate for the fork sag as well) and with about 25mm of spacers and a 50mm rise bars (and 12° back sweep), it feels great, like driving a truck, with a very upward position (I don't like the hunched XC position). Reach (size L) is 490mm and +-505mm as sag.Ĭoming from a 2013 26", it felt really weird at first, the pelvis being more forward, close to vertical to the BB means that the upper body weight is much more spread between the saddle and bars (while with a 73° seat angle most of the weight is on the saddle, arms are just holding the bars with not much weight on them), and I'd get numbness in the hands. Of course you're not gonna beat an endurance record with such a geometry but it's pretty great for going up and down (and really not so bad to wander around). I have a Honzo ESD with a 77.5° seat tube, which turns to about 79° at sag, and I really like it.
Similar to the "how much reach is too much reach ?" thread, how steep is too steep ?
0 kommentar(er)
