Convoluted bike sizing question..

wafter

Über Member
Location
Oxford
I apparently have relatively long legs at around 85cm for my height of 177cm. The sources I've read suggest that as such I should get a better bike fit from more "relaxed" or "endurance" focussed geometry; i.e. a shorter reach and taller stack, or larger stack:reach ratio.

This issue was highlighted when I bought my Boardman; their website suggesting that my leg length dictated a large frame, with my height however being on the borderline between small and medium. In the end I bought a medium and am comfortable on it; FWIW the saddle is sat pretty far back (for the sake of my knees) and I've put a 90mm stem on it to bring the bars back a bit. Left to my own devices I tend to ride with my hands on the rads of the bars between the tops and hoods, although I'll usually use all positions (at least for short periods) throughout a ride.

Knowing the fit of the boardman is pretty decent I used that as a guide when buying my latest bike. Based on height the manufacturers' figures put me at the bottom end of the large size frame, and give no guidance based on leg length. I test rode both large and medium examples, instantly discounting the large as it felt massive with far too much reach. The medium felt a lot better and quite similar to my Boardman; it's frame having a reach just 4mm less and a more relaxed stack of around 33mm more than the Boardman.

I eventually ordered a medium variant of the next model up from the one I'd tried, which has the same frame geometry and stem but apparently different bars.

The bars on the new bike have far more reach, which I really don't like. Compared to the Boardman, relative to the bottom bracket the new bike's bars have 33mm more stack (fine) and 9mm more reach (not the end of the world) on the tops, but 33mm more reach on the drops and 40mm more on the hoods.

As I've mentioned elsewhere on here the bike has to go back due to an issue with the frame. It'll be replaced so I presumably have the option to ask for a small frame in replacement, should I so desire..

The small frame has 21mm less stack and 10mm shorter reach than the medium, but uses the same 100mm long stem and massive bars; so off the shelf it offers little improvement in reach and maybe even a disadvantage with stack (although it'd still be 12mm taller than the Boardman and I could always flip the stem).

Other concerns with the small are that the seat tube is 30mm shorter than the medium; meaning even more leverage against the frame from the seat post, as well as reduced inserted length (around 145mm of the 310mm total which is less than I'd like). Finally the small frame comes with 170mm cranks as opposed to 172.5s on the medium. It would however be lighter and stiffer (whether that's a good thing) with a slightly slacker head angle which would probably be welcome if fitting shorter bars or stem.

The medium frame does feel quite "big"; the standover height is around 10mm more than my Boardman and the head tube quite deep / top tube angle quite steep. I'm not sure how much of the feel is down to the bars though; with their long reach and flared drops (which are wider than I'm used to). I don't recall feeling this way about the medium I test rode with the different bars..

It looks like I'll have to replace the bars and / or stem on whichever size I go for so that doesn't really factor in. Having written it all down there don't appear to be many plus points for the small frame (which is recommended for rider height of 164-170cm while I'm 177cm), while I know by replacing the bars and stem and moving some spacers around I could make the new bike's geometry pretty much the same as the Boardman's regardless of the frame size.. All that said the medium still just looks and feels a bit big.

I'd be interested to hear peoples' thoughts as unfortunately I don't have the ability to test ride a small one to find out for myself!
 
Last edited:
Location
Loch side.
The thread title is spot-on!

Just go for a ride and drink a beer. Size? 500ml of course.
 

newfhouse

Elitist lefty
Location
CR8
what bike is it? Croix de fer?
@steveindenmark is around 5’10 I think and has a S
Looks like a 2020 CdF30 from the colour scheme.

I’m about the same height, 178 cm. I tried a medium but found a large suited me best for commuting and touring. I don’t know if the geometry has changed since 2016.

Bottom line @wafter , to be sure you really need to try before you buy.
 
OP
wafter

wafter

Über Member
Location
Oxford
Thanks guys - guess I was never going to keep secret what it is given how much I've been ranting about them on here recently... I guess hiding its identity isn't really necessary anyway.

what bike is it? Croix de fer?
@steveindenmark is around 5’10 I think and has a S
Thanks and Indeed it is! Now you mention it I recall @steveindenmark commenting along similar lines - I'd be very interested to hear his thoughts / hear a bit more about his measurements(!) / see some pics of his bike to get an idea of how it looks when setup for someone of similar proportions :smile:

Looks like a 2020 CdF30 from the colour scheme.

I’m about the same height, 178 cm. I tried a medium but found a large suited me best for commuting and touring. I don’t know if the geometry has changed since 2016.

Bottom line @wafter , to be sure you really need to try before you buy.
In one :smile:

That's interesting that you found a large more comfortable; for me it felt utterly enormous and immediately nope-tastic. I guess you probably have more "normal" proportions and a correspondingly longer reach.. I actually have quite a wide arm span as well, although I think this is mostly due to broad shoulders which (if combined with normal length arms) is probably only going to make reach problems worse still.

AFAIK they've not changed the frame geometry since 2016 (it changed to a more "compact" format between 2014 and 2015 MY IIRC) but the bars changed this year; at least on the CdF30 and while not suggested by the specs, also on the 20 according to the promotional images.

FWIW the bars fitted between 2016 and 2019 are "Genesis X-Race Pro" with a 16 degree flare. I can't find the dims for this exact model, however it appears that the 8 degree flare equivalent of the same name fitted to various road models has a 70mm reach and 125mm drop (according to some internet digging). According to one source I found, these bars when listed at 420mm width are actually 400mm across the shifters flaring out to 470mm at the drops. The bars also have a nice rearward sweep of maybe 10mm and slightly flattened profile on the tops.. I'm not sure if the reach measurements are from the centreline of the stem clamp or the swept-back tops.

Conversely the new 30 (and arguably 20) is fitted wth "Genesis Adventure" bars with a 12 degree flare. I've measured mine at 90mm reach and 125mm drop, being true 420mm across the tops and flaring out to 470mm at the drops with no swept-back profile at the tops.

Clearly the new bars aren't well suited to me and they seem to bring zero benefits over the older ones; so I'm somewhat puzzled as to why Genesis would replace the old ones - cost cutting perhaps..?

So now I've crunched the numbers the medium I rode with the earlier X-Race Pro bars would have had similar reach values to my Boardman; maybe 5-10mm less reach on the tops and perhaps 5mm more on the drops and hoods with about 33mm more stack height so no issue (as I found on the test ride). I noticed the lesser spacing between the hoods at the time and the more compact bars certainly made it feel a lot more manageable to the point where I found it totally comfortable.

I'm not certain that the bars are the only issue though; looking at the example currently in my possession the whole bike just seems bigger. The fatter tyres raise axle height by around 18-20mm and the BB is only about 6mm lower than that of the Boardman, so 12-14mm further off the ground. Measured from the ground the upper face of the top tube is 755mm off the ground at the rear and 825mm at the front, while in comparison the Genesis is maybe 760mm and 845mm in approximately the same locations and the tops of the head tubes are 840 and 875mm respectively for each when measured from the floor.. While additional bar stack is usually considered to aid comfortable /relaxed fit, I think the amount of rake on the top tube / frame height at the front is contributing to making the bike look oversize; something not helped by the large bars.

I'm trying to visualise the bike with more compact bars as this would serve to shrink its proportions in my mind and make the whole thing seem more manageable. With a set of older bars fitted I see no reason why it should be unmanageable (and it was all good on the test ride) , but still find the aesthetic just screams "too fapping big!" and wonder whether I'm missing trick by not going for a small since lighter weight and potentially greater agility would be welcome, while enormous seatpost extension and shorter crank arms might not.

It also feels wrong going for a size that the manufacturers suggest is intended for riders that are at least 7cm shorter than I am, although as we all know these figures are only given as a guide and are made on the basis of "normal" body proportions..

I'll bang a few more columns in the geometry comparison spreadsheet to allow me to better compare the effects of the different bar sizes now I think I have some numbers for the older ones.. the shop's not got back to me yet to organise a replacement and while their communication has been somewhat underwhelming so far, this combined with the long weekend does play into my hands in giving me moretime to reach a decision.

For now I'm keeping an eye out on ebay for some used X-Race Pro bars and might tickle Genesis with an email, just to see what they come up with.

Thanks again for humouring me - I appreciate the input and it helps to write down all my deliberations :smile:
 

CanucksTraveller

Macho Business Donkey Wrestler
Location
Hertfordshire
As you know I've got the TdF in a large and I'm exactly six foot. Now the interesting thing for me was that 6 foot is bang on the upper limit of "large" in Genesis' sizing guide, and comfortably in the XL band. My LBS owner Paul however looked me up and down and just immediately went "you're a large on a Genesis". He said I'd find the XL way too big. I tested the large and he was right, it was spot on for me, actually just a smidge towards feeling like quite a big bike still. (Not so big to make me consider Medium).

TL;DR: Genesis come up big and you're better erring on the smaller side.
 

newfhouse

Elitist lefty
Location
CR8
I still think you’re over-thinking the detailed measurements. I’m not sure I’d be able to detect a 5mm difference in reach in a blind test, for example. The responses to this thread have demonstrated that height alone is not necessarily the best guide to a comfortable fit. I think there’s no substitute for sitting astride and I certainly wouldn’t be forking out for an expensive new bike without riding one first. In the current circumstances I’d probably wait until that was possible. Second hand is different, because you’d probably sell it on for what you paid.

Anyway, those are merely my thoughts. It’s your money and I hope you end up with a bike that’s exactly right for you.
 

cyberknight

As long as I breathe, I attack.
Even the same frame geometry and the same brand can be different :smile:
I have 2 baordmans and the later has a very short reach bar so i had to have a 20 mm longer stem to give me the same reach
 

kingrollo

Veteran
I usually go with the bike size guide - then throw £100 at my fitter who sets me up to the MM - worked pretty well so far.
 
OP
wafter

wafter

Über Member
Location
Oxford
As you know I've got the TdF in a large and I'm exactly six foot. Now the interesting thing for me was that 6 foot is bang on the upper limit of "large" in Genesis' sizing guide, and comfortably in the XL band. My LBS owner Paul however looked me up and down and just immediately went "you're a large on a Genesis". He said I'd find the XL way too big. I tested the large and he was right, it was spot on for me, actually just a smidge towards feeling like quite a big bike still. (Not so big to make me consider Medium).

TL;DR: Genesis come up big and you're better erring on the smaller side.
Thanks - sounds like you were in a similar situation to me but one size up! I think the geometries of the TdF and CdF are pretty similar (I know the TdF has longer chainstays, amongst other things) and know exactly what you mean about the bike still feeling a bit big.

From Genesis' sizing my dilemma should be between a large and a medium; not a medium and a small. Having spent more time messing about with the bike(s) today I think the main reason I feel it's too large is the significant stack, correspondingly deep head tube, steep top tube angle and high standover.

I can't help but think that someone dropped the ball with regard to the above geometry; since I have long legs and am at the top of their medium size range (so should have amongst the most clearance when straddling the top tube) yet there's still significant interferance between the tube and certain bits of me. So, if my 85cm inseam feels a bit close to the 808mm standover of the tube (which of course grows as you move towards the front of the bike) I can see how someone at the lower end of the stipulated height range (especially with short legs) might enjoy hard contact if trying to straddle the bike :blink:

I've got some more thoughts along these lines but will chuck them into the inevitable wall of text below. Ta again for your thoughs :smile:


I still think you’re over-thinking the detailed measurements. I’m not sure I’d be able to detect a 5mm difference in reach in a blind test, for example. The responses to this thread have demonstrated that height alone is not necessarily the best guide to a comfortable fit. I think there’s no substitute for sitting astride and I certainly wouldn’t be forking out for an expensive new bike without riding one first. In the current circumstances I’d probably wait until that was possible. Second hand is different, because you’d probably sell it on for what you paid.

Anyway, those are merely my thoughts. It’s your money and I hope you end up with a bike that’s exactly right for you.
That wouldn't be unlikely since I'm adept at over-thinking stuff, like numbers and in this situation they're all I have to compare the two different sizes. I agree that there's absolutely no substitute for testing and was sold on the idea of the medium having ridden that; this has really (mostly) come about due to the changes in the handlebar making the bike feel a lot bigger.. somewhat surprised I don't recall the tight standover on the demo bike, though.

I totally agree with your point abut waiting but as usual I'm in a bit of a pickle with this purchase. I only really have the option to get a different size because the bike needs to be returned due to a defect; leaving me a finite amount of time to act (whether this be to get a replacement or a refund; the latter leaving me with no ability to get the same model elsewhere for the same price).

I appreciate your thoughts :smile:

I usually go with the bike size guide - then throw £100 at my fitter who sets me up to the MM - worked pretty well so far.
Sadly funds won't stretch as far as a fitting service; although in time I'd love to give one a go to see just how horribly wrong I've currently got it :tongue:

In terms of geometry you could get both the small and mediums very close to each other if you wanted.. the differences between the two aren't that much; with only 10mm reach and 21mm stack separating the two. Reach could be taken care of with a new stem of just 10mm difference (although granted this would change steering feel a little so they'd not be identical). The bar stack of the med could be dropped to that of the small by removing / relocating the 25mm of spacers beneath the stem, while I suspect that flipping the stem on the small would bring the bar height up to that of the medium (with a small corresponding drop in reach).



I've spent the past few days photographing, measuring and poking the bikes in an effort to reach a decision. I've found a few "interesting" things..

The frame geometry of the "small" CdF is actually very similar to my "medium" Giant OCR; both have a 500mm seat tube, head tubes are 135 and 140mm respectively, very "compact" proportions with a lot of top tube angle. The Giant has 30mm less stack and 14mm more reach; however this would be expected to an extent considering the Giant has pretty aggressive geometry and the CdF isn't just for roads, so will be a bit more upright.

The Medium CdF I currently have in my possession is pretty similar proportionally to my (medium) Boardman - the seatpost tube is the same length and the reach is only 6mm shorter on the CdF. The big difference is in the stack, which is 35mm more on the CdF; making the front end a lot taller. There's also a fair bit more reach on the bars too; but these can obviously be changed as nec.

Given that the supplier doesn't seem in a hurry to get the bike collected, today I caved and gingerly fitted a cleaned pedal from my OCR, to get a better feel of how the bike actually felt without teetering on the saddle / tip-toes. With my leading foot on a pedal the bike feels better than it did, although still very "expansive" and I'm not sure how much the reach would affect bike control. The increased stack certainly serves to offset some of the extra reach at the bars; thanks to the fact that as the arms pivot at the shoulders to raise the hands, so the hands also move forward.

I took some photos of myself on the numerous bikes in different bar positions for comparison. On the tops the position on the Genesis is obviously more upright than the Boardman, since the reach is about the same but the CdF has a lot more stack. This trend continues with hands on the hoods and drops.

I have recognised the argument that neither one is "right" and that either will do, it would just be better to pick the one that's closest to where I want it from the off.

This leads me to a kind of CdF paradox; in that I'm now forced to make a decision about what I want from the bike and how I need to spec it to achieve this (therefore removing some of it's "jack of all trades" appeal). I've so far been comparing it to my road bikes because I think they fit me.

Of course, this may be missing the point to a point since the CdF is intended to be less aggressive than a road bike so it's flawed to expect the geometry to be exactly the same. Rightly or wrongly I see the two sizes as more appropriate for different types of riding - the lower stack, shorter wheelbase and somewhat lighter weight of the small size being more appropriate for pressing on / "spirited" riding, while the longer wheelbase and more upright position make the medium look more touring friendly.

Anyway, I'll continue to mull it over. If nothing else I feel like I'm getting a better grasp of all the stuff to consider, even if I'm still struggling on a decision.

Thanks to anyone who actually made it to the end of this post; tbh it's useful enough to empty my brain, regardless of whether I get any replies; although of course they're always appreciated :smile:
 

newfhouse

Elitist lefty
Location
CR8
Of course, this may be missing the point to a point since the CdF is intended to be less aggressive than a road bike so it's flawed to expect the geometry to be exactly the same. Rightly or wrongly I see the two sizes as more appropriate for different types of riding - the lower stack, shorter wheelbase and somewhat lighter weight of the small size being more appropriate for pressing on / "spirited" riding, while the longer wheelbase and more upright position make the medium look more touring friendly.
I think this is correct. When I first rode mine I felt my position was similar to being on my 1980s rigid Raleigh MTB - what people would think of now as a hybrid. What suits you best will depend on your use case. Mine is used primarily for load carrying and winter commuting, and longer slower rides including touring. On my 18 km commute Strava shows that it is on average 4 minutes (~10%) slower than my sportier bikes. I suspect that this is partly a result of a more relaxed, upright riding position, but also weight, loading and the fact that it is my bike of choice in wet weather. Four minutes? I’m happy to relax and live with that in exchange for comfort and versatility.
 
OP
wafter

wafter

Über Member
Location
Oxford
I think this is correct. When I first rode mine I felt my position was similar to being on my 1980s rigid Raleigh MTB - what people would think of now as a hybrid. What suits you best will depend on your use case. Mine is used primarily for load carrying and winter commuting, and longer slower rides including touring. On my 18 km commute Strava shows that it is on average 4 minutes (~10%) slower than my sportier bikes. I suspect that this is partly a result of a more relaxed, upright riding position, but also weight, loading and the fact that it is my bike of choice in wet weather. Four minutes? I’m happy to relax and live with that in exchange for comfort and versatility.
Thanks - in the comparison with the MTB / Hybrid I guess you picked up on it being a fair bit more relaxed / higher at the front..? It sounds like you have a clear purpose for yours which I guess makes the selection easier! Thanks for the observation on speed; it's always interesting to see some numbers and as you say 10% seems like a fair tradeoff for the extra versatility the bike affords :smile:

It's clear that despite the bike's versatility, through bike size and setup I'm going to have to make some decisions / compromises on what it's most suitable for. Part of me wants to view the medium as "like my Boardman but a bit more relaxed" since the CdF's frame reach is around 7mm shorter but 35mm higher. The reach to the bars is actually 8mm more for the CdF thanks to its longer 105mm (100mm quoted) stem compared to the 90mm item on my Boardman (which replaced the stock 100mm offering to cut the reach down).

I think if I stuck with the medium I'd want to drop the bars; removing all the spacers would get them to around 20mm higher than the Boardman and about the same height as they'd be on the small CdF frame out of the box. Of course again I'm used to riding on the road for no more than about 3-4hrs at a time (although have ridden the OCR off road a little) - maybe I'd be glad of all that extra stack when touring / off road..?

I'm definitely going to have to change the bars for something with less reach as the ones on the new CdF are 20mm longer and you can feel it. By comparison the CdF 20 I rode with the shorter reach bars felt a lot more natural to the point where I didn't even question whether a smaller frame would have been better; which I guess should tell me something.

I guess it boils down to whether I can live with the standover and psychological "largeness" of the medium, plus the knowledge that without resorting to aggressively-angled stems I can only get the bars within 20mm stack of the road bike; if this is even an issue given the bike's use.

Conversely if I went for the small I'm not too keen on the idea of 170mm cranks (even though they're less than 1.5% shorter that 172.5s which probably isn't even noticeable in use), nor the reduced amount of seatpost engagement in the frame. I'd also be a little concerned by the frame reach being about 17mm shorter than my Boardman...

Interestingly, it might be completely arbitrary but all the promo pictures on the Genesis site show the bikes with their saddles a lot higher than the bars (on my med. it's about 35mm higher than the bar centreline on mine); perhaps just marketing to make them seem more aggressive, perhaps a reflection of how the designers intended the bikes to be set up. Funnily enough, looking at the image below (which I believe is a medium from the proportions) there's around 175mm of seat post exposed. This is as much as I'd need on a small and on this frame suggests a saddle stack of around 77cm to suit an inside leg of around 87-88cm - which I don't think you're going to find on many riders at or under the max. recommended height for this size frame of 176cm!

genesis-croix-de-fer-30-2020-gravel-bike-green-EV370103-6000-1.jpg


Similarly looking at this promo shot it appears the rider is on a small frame (from the spacing between down and top tubes at the head tube), and again appears to have the saddle a lot higher than the bars:

lifestyle-1_1564129647_lg2x.jpg


Same in this shot too:

lifestyle-7_1564129851_lg2x.jpg


Finally, below are some shots I took of myself in an effort to get some idea of how the relative geometries of the bikes affect my position on them. I appreciate it's difficult to compare them back to back (on my laptop I can just flick from one to the other to get a decent idea) but would welcome any thoughts anyone might have on these. Does the CdF look too big? Does the OCR look too small? To me the back angles look OK and while the shoulder angles are maybe a bit conservative (at less than the touted 90 degrees) I've spent a lot of time setting the Boardman up (and the OCR is very close, barring a bit more stack on the bars) and any more reach is uncomfortable.. although I suspect this could be offset by adding more height to open up shoulder angle while keeping back angle the same..

Anyway... Genesis:
IMG_0031_MOD.JPG


Boardman:
IMG_0043_MOD.JPG


Giant (ironically named since it's the smallest of the lot :tongue:):
IMG_0056_MOD.JPG



FWIW it's worth here are shots of all three bikes without my hanging off them:

IMG_0065.JPG


IMG_0064.JPG


IMG_0063.JPG


I'm still all over the plcae but have a nagging fear at the back of my mind of going too large on the frame and it feeling ungainly and difficult to control..
 

Grant Fondo

Riding backwards into the future
Location
Cheshire
Thanks - in the comparison with the MTB / Hybrid I guess you picked up on it being a fair bit more relaxed / higher at the front..? It sounds like you have a clear purpose for yours which I guess makes the selection easier! Thanks for the observation on speed; it's always interesting to see some numbers and as you say 10% seems like a fair tradeoff for the extra versatility the bike affords :smile:

It's clear that despite the bike's versatility, through bike size and setup I'm going to have to make some decisions / compromises on what it's most suitable for. Part of me wants to view the medium as "like my Boardman but a bit more relaxed" since the CdF's frame reach is around 7mm shorter but 35mm higher. The reach to the bars is actually 8mm more for the CdF thanks to its longer 105mm (100mm quoted) stem compared to the 90mm item on my Boardman (which replaced the stock 100mm offering to cut the reach down).

I think if I stuck with the medium I'd want to drop the bars; removing all the spacers would get them to around 20mm higher than the Boardman and about the same height as they'd be on the small CdF frame out of the box. Of course again I'm used to riding on the road for no more than about 3-4hrs at a time (although have ridden the OCR off road a little) - maybe I'd be glad of all that extra stack when touring / off road..?

I'm definitely going to have to change the bars for something with less reach as the ones on the new CdF are 20mm longer and you can feel it. By comparison the CdF 20 I rode with the shorter reach bars felt a lot more natural to the point where I didn't even question whether a smaller frame would have been better; which I guess should tell me something.

I guess it boils down to whether I can live with the standover and psychological "largeness" of the medium, plus the knowledge that without resorting to aggressively-angled stems I can only get the bars within 20mm stack of the road bike; if this is even an issue given the bike's use.

Conversely if I went for the small I'm not too keen on the idea of 170mm cranks (even though they're less than 1.5% shorter that 172.5s which probably isn't even noticeable in use), nor the reduced amount of seatpost engagement in the frame. I'd also be a little concerned by the frame reach being about 17mm shorter than my Boardman...

Interestingly, it might be completely arbitrary but all the promo pictures on the Genesis site show the bikes with their saddles a lot higher than the bars (on my med. it's about 35mm higher than the bar centreline on mine); perhaps just marketing to make them seem more aggressive, perhaps a reflection of how the designers intended the bikes to be set up. Funnily enough, looking at the image below (which I believe is a medium from the proportions) there's around 175mm of seat post exposed. This is as much as I'd need on a small and on this frame suggests a saddle stack of around 77cm to suit an inside leg of around 87-88cm - which I don't think you're going to find on many riders at or under the max. recommended height for this size frame of 176cm!

View attachment 514772

Similarly looking at this promo shot it appears the rider is on a small frame (from the spacing between down and top tubes at the head tube), and again appears to have the saddle a lot higher than the bars:

View attachment 514775

Same in this shot too:

View attachment 514776

Finally, below are some shots I took of myself in an effort to get some idea of how the relative geometries of the bikes affect my position on them. I appreciate it's difficult to compare them back to back (on my laptop I can just flick from one to the other to get a decent idea) but would welcome any thoughts anyone might have on these. Does the CdF look too big? Does the OCR look too small? To me the back angles look OK and while the shoulder angles are maybe a bit conservative (at less than the touted 90 degrees) I've spent a lot of time setting the Boardman up (and the OCR is very close, barring a bit more stack on the bars) and any more reach is uncomfortable.. although I suspect this could be offset by adding more height to open up shoulder angle while keeping back angle the same..

Anyway... Genesis:
View attachment 514777

Boardman:
View attachment 514778

Giant (ironically named since it's the smallest of the lot :tongue:):
View attachment 514779


FWIW it's worth here are shots of all three bikes without my hanging off them:

View attachment 514780

View attachment 514781

View attachment 514782

I'm still all over the plcae but have a nagging fear at the back of my mind of going too large on the frame and it feeling ungainly and difficult to control..
Personally i would go Genesis as most upright, i always go 58cm frame and 6ft3ins. XL's always feel too much of a stretch :okay: Good post btw.
 
Interesting to see the long stem on the Genesis. My Kona looks reasonably similar in set up to the Genesis, however, with a much shorter stem, 70mm on the Kona as opposed to 100mm on your Genesis. This runs contrary to bike fitting guidelines, which suggest that with an ideal stem length you shouldn't be able to see the front axle. I find though that the short stem and wide bars provide a really comfortable ride and easy to ride off road as well as on. As @vickster says, your arms look too straight, shortening the stem would sort that problem out and probably make it more comfortable. Overall it looks generally ok and like it needs a tweek or two to make it perfect.
 
Top Bottom