Orbea Rise sizing

[LeeS69]

Sorry when I say XC I really mean anything except chucking yourself down a super steep hill with 4 foot drops and trying to create the biggest slow motion rooster trails, which sadly is what 80% of ebiking review videos seem to show all the time!! Flowing single track is my favourite really...

 

[Stefaan]

I’m 1m78 and went for the medium.

 

[theremotejuggernaut]

This bike is an all trail vs. an XC and the geometry keeps you from flying over the handlebars for steeper down hills. I really enjoy it and am not afraid of any rollable drop with it.

When you see other brands staring 63/64 degree head angles, the rise seems steep in paper. When you actually get on it and throw yourself down steep things, it feels stable and controlled.

That was one of the things that really surprised me when I got it. Coming from a 64* head angle, I was worried it would feel a bit twitchy in comparison but it really doesn't.

 

[theremotejuggernaut]

Sorry when I say XC I really mean anything except chucking yourself down a super steep hill with 4 foot drops and trying to create the biggest slow motion rooster trails, which sadly is what 80% of ebiking review videos seem to show all the time!! Flowing single track is my favourite really...

This is basically the type of riding I do. I think of it as XC because its just pedalling around. I think according to the Internet that its now reffered to as trail. Whatever. I was surprised at gow well the Rise corners and tackles twisty trails. Compared to my old bike, the BB is quite a lot higher so I was concerned it would feel a bit wobbly through corners but it really doesn't.

I wanted the exact same thing as you. A mountain bike with assistance rather than an electric bike that does it all for you.

Luckily, the Rise was the right choice for me at least.

 

[eddomak]

I’m 1m78 and went for the medium.

Same here. 178cm (5ft 10in) and medium frame. Perfect fit. 81cm from pedal to top of saddle, so it might be good to get a longer dropper than the standard 150mm drop. The shorter cranks on the M are also a benefit - I am already pedal striking more than my acoustic bike and would definitely look into shorter cranks if I was on the L with the longer cranks.

When I tried a Levo SL Large for 3 months it was too long and pulling me over drop-offs despite having longer arms than average.

 

[LeeS69]

Same here. 178cm (5ft 10in) and medium frame. Perfect fit. 81cm from pedal to top of saddle, so it might be good to get a longer dropper than the standard 150mm drop.

I'm 178cm ish but I measure the saddle from the centre of the crank to the top of saddle in line with the seat tube as 81cm, medium isn't even in the ball park!! I the shop I definitely felt more comfortable on the XL.....

Here are the L (grey) and the XL (orange) side by side with the saddle about the right height for me.... The reach on the XL felt pretty comfortable too and the taller headtube.......

 

[Killswitch73]

I went large at 177 and had to get a lower stack dropper (2022 Fox transfer) its perfect now , love the reach now . a medium would of been to cramped. i like to put my bum out and have control going down.

 

[John_A]

Late to the thread, but just under 6'. Only rise I'd tried was a medium and obviously too small. Went for the L and think I may have been better with an XL, or maybe I just need to get used to a slightly shorter bike

 

[ebsocalmtb]

Late to the thread, but just under 6'. Only rise I'd tried was a medium and obviously too small. Went for the L and think I may have been better with an XL, or maybe I just need to get used to a slightly shorter bike

6'2" here on an XL. The XL is a biiiiig bike. It doesn't ride as large as it is if that makes any sense... but there are times where I notice the reach/stack/seattube/standover when compared to my other bikes that are similar in size (2019 XL Megatower) that ride smaller. Those extra 5-7mm of dimensions and extra seat tube length make it feel like an XL+ at times.

I'd suggest the large from my experience. I find that when on mtb's and between sizes, I usually do better to size up. In contrast, when on emtb's and between sizes, I typically prefer to size down.

 

[John_A]

6'2" here on an XL. The XL is a biiiiig bike. It doesn't ride as large as it is if that makes any sense... but there are times where I notice the reach/stack/seattube/standover when compared to my other bikes that are similar in size (2019 XL Megatower) that ride smaller. Those extra 5-7mm of dimensions and extra seat tube length make it feel like an XL+ at times.

I'd suggest the large from my experience. I find that when on mtb's and between sizes, I usually do better to size up. In contrast, when on emtb's and between sizes, I typically prefer to size down.

Not having tried an XL I really wouldn't know, but the L feels just a little bit smaller than I'm used to, It's definitly not much, and I'm sure after putting a few miles in I'll adapt.

 

[BiGJZ74]

Late to the thread, but just under 6'. Only rise I'd tried was a medium and obviously too small. Went for the L and think I may have been better with an XL, or maybe I just need to get used to a slightly shorter bike

I'm just under 6' and ride a large w/ 50mm Stem. I Have Shorter legs and a long Torso so XL was no1 an option ST lengthwise.. The reach on the large is the shortest I prefer.... 475-495mm is my reach preference at my height. 5'11 3/4". STA is a big factor in how a bike feels compared to reach. My Deviate Claymore has a 490mm Reach and a STA of 78..EFF TT is 622mm. My Rise H has 76.5 STA and a 474 Reach and EFF TT is 619mm.

 

[John_A]

I'm just under 6' and ride a large w/ 50mm Stem. I Have Shorter legs and a long Torso so XL was no1 an option ST lengthwise.. The reach on the large is the shortest I prefer.... 475-495mm is my reach preference at my height. 5'11 3/4". STA is a big factor in how a bike feels compared to reach. My Deviate Claymore has a 490mm Reach and a STA of 78..EFF TT is 622mm. My Rise H has 76.5 STA and a 474 Reach and EFF TT is 619mm.

Yes, the steep-over is great on the L and may have been too much on the XL, reach is a little less than I'm used to, may try a slightly longer stem

 

[MarkH]

I proscribe to the RAD sizi g principles (check youtube) so use reach = 2.5 x height cm. At 5ft5 that puts me on a small which fits perfectly. Tried a medium which was OK but noticeably less chuckable.

 

[John_A]

I proscribe to the RAD sizi g principles (check youtube) so use reach = 2.5 x height cm. At 5ft5 that puts me on a small which fits perfectly. Tried a medium which was OK but noticeably less chuckable.

Thought I'd hit on some genius formula there, unfortunately for me 182*2.5 = 455 which puts me on a medium which is far too small

 

[hind-corners]

I proscribe to the RAD sizi g principles (check youtube) so use reach = 2.5 x height cm. At 5ft5 that puts me on a small which fits perfectly. Tried a medium which was OK but noticeably less chuckable.

I'm around same height and I went with M and have really enjoyed it but I wouldn't have made the choice without testing both bikes first.

I think this is mostly about personal preference, my other bike is S with 425mm reach and I always felt the cockpit to bit cramped. Reach is just one aspect of it, since the seat angle defines where you actually sit in the bike and which angle you hands end up being.

 

[MarkH]

I'm around same height and I went with M and have really enjoyed it but I wouldn't have made the choice without testing both bikes first.

I think this is mostly about personal preference, my other bike is S with 425mm reach and I always felt the cockpit to bit cramped. Reach is just one aspect of it, since the seat angle defines where you actually sit in the bike and which angle you hands end up being.

Shows how important personal preference and testing a bike is. I'm less concerned about seated position and more about reach which is a standing function, as that's the position I will be in cornering or in the air, where I want to be able to move the bike around under me.

 

[LeeS69]

I proscribe to the RAD sizi g principles (check youtube) so use reach = 2.5 x height cm. At 5ft5 that puts me on a small which fits perfectly. Tried a medium which was OK but noticeably less chuckable.

Haven't watched it but that's total rubbish... I have a long inside leg and need a high saddle position, it's primary to my fit. You can't just make an assumption based on someone's overall height. I'm 179 - 179.5 cm and that would put me below medium at 448mm reach.... I'm very happy on my XL with 500 and the LG felt cramped. You need to "prescribe" something less silly....

 

[Micael]

The formula he is referencing is from lee likes bikes, that formula is supposed to be an online shopping kind of thing, and merely to put you somewhere at around the ballpark (in your case it would put you at an M essentially), that being said even he doesn't think that is the ideal way of doing things, funny enough one thing that came up in one of the videos I saw of him in the past and that is actually a fairly decent way to test a bike in a store is to just lie on the floor with the bike on top of you (like you are riding it upside down), since it does actually allow you to check the range of motion you can do on the bike.

With that being said, it is obvious that formula prefers a size down, which frankly if one is going to buy a bike without testing, it is definitely the way to go if there is any doubts, you can extend a bike with far greater range than you can shorten it.

Anyway there is simply no substitute for testing the different sizes on actual trails, and with different gear if one is between sizes, for example I had already tested a Large with the standard stem and cranks, and it felt a bit too large, but then I got to test the Medium (default stem and cranks), and a Large with 165mm cranks and 32mm stem, side by side on the same trails one after the other (as in did a trail on one, then switched to the other and repeated) through multiple trails and ended up going for the Large, the difference was small to the point that I would frankly be happy with either size, but the large with the shorter stem definitely won out for me, since it felt more planted so to speak on the trails, while not really having any downside to that, the closest was that the large felt perhaps slightly less twitchy when turning at very low speeds.

 

[LeeS69]

The formula he is referencing is from lee likes bikes, that formula is supposed to be an online shopping kind of thing, and merely to put you somewhere at around the ballpark (in your case it would put you at an M essentially)

I also tried the Trek Rail (but it was too numb, glad I came across the Rise instead) - this "ballpark" would also put me on a medium. The large rail had the factory dropper a good 12mm past it's min insertion line to get right for me.

To give a serious response, get a proper bike fit (on a measuring bike) and take your sizing from that.
My knees were being killed because my (LG) MTB saddle was slightly low!! Would never had sussed it without a bike fit. Road bike (XL) was only a few mm out here and there. I also have a race bike, cross bike and hard tail that are all a Large, as you say you really need to try bikes for size if you can.

 

[MarkH]

Glad I've stirred up some interesting conversation. I've always demo'd both M & S in every bike I've bought as I'm right at the overlap between the two sizes, and always ended up buying S. Also reach has grown massively over the last 7 years, my current small ebike is almost 40mm longer reach than the first one I bought in 2017, whilst now 61 I'm probably an inch shorter.
A lot depends on what you prioritise in your riding, for me it's all about the DH, in fact I hold many of the KOMs for ebikes on the downhill segments of the enduro trails in my valley in the Alps. A longer, slower turning ebike isn't for me, but your results might vary.

 

[MarkH]

The formula he is referencing is from lee likes bikes, that formula is supposed to be an online shopping kind of thing, and merely to put you somewhere at around the ballpark

Lee likes bikes originally suggested RAD. There's a video of a couple of youtube guys who put this to test. The test subject always rode medium, but RAD suggested small so he rode 2 identical but different sized bikes back to back on the same downhill flow trail and was consistently significantly faster on the smaller bike, as reach (with chainstay length) determines your standing weight distribution. This closest mirrors my riding and is the reason I've always sized to the RAD reach when demoing candidates, as I'm normally between manufacturer sizes.
Now if you spend all your time seated, your body proportions are non-standard or you're not particularly interested in speed and prefer, say more comfort, or better peddling efficiency or climbing ability then there's probably a better method for you. RAD merely suggests ideal size based on reach for max DH speed, for your height; all other parameters being equal.
It's just another option to consider.

 

[Howiep]

As other posters have mentioned there are more sophisticated ways to check RAD that factor in leg and arm length, such as lying upside down or the stepping stool method.


I am 6’ and loved my large Scott Spark. I demoed a large Rise and it was pretty good, but was less chuckable and I found it harder to weight up the front wheel without feeling vulnerable to washing out. I just thought it was a necessary evil because the Rise is a bigger slacker bike.

Then I did the stepladder test and found the large Spark is RAD neutral for me, as is the MEDIUM Rise.

I took the plunge and the medium rides amazing. The seat needs to be right back on the rails but that’s no biggie.

I sometimes borrow a friend’s large size Rise while I’m riding with a friend from out of town so have had the ability to get “used” to both. The large is better where the trails are rough & straight, but as soon as it gets twisty I can’t connect to the ground and feel the grip like I’m used to.

Now I think of all the other bikes I’ve ridden over the years (especially ones that were newer than what I was currently riding) and wrote off because they felt vague/numb. I had written off whole brands (sorry Specialized!).

 

[Wooders]

For anyone who hasn't seen it there's an interesting article on PB: What Geometry Numbers Do the Top Enduro Racers Actually Prefer? . The takeaway from that is that the 6' riders generally prefer a reach or around 475mm.

There's a good discussion on RAD in the comments that starts around this post:

It is not RAD, it's just a more accurate way to measure reach. The RAD method sounds sensible, but it's nonsense. Well-intended nonsense, but nonsense. For example, RAD doesn't account for seat-tube angle, so if you optimize a bike for winch-and-plummet riding with a super steep seat-tube angle, RAD produces an extremely short butt-to-bar distance. Similarly, optimize a hardtail for milder terrain and you'll want a more traditional seat-tube angle, but RAD does not account for this. RAD doesn't even separate reach from stack, so it equally recommends a long bike with time-trial bar height as a vertical bike with zero reach.

The evolution of RAD, RAAD, incorporates an angle to try to address some of these flaws, but it's still a workaround full of recommended constants necessary to produce acceptable results.

A proper predictive method incorporates many physiological measurements and allows variability for rider preference and terrain. As with my normalized reach, such a method adds complexity, but it's better to be complex and correct than simple and wrong.

The other approach is via data-driven observation: gather a lot of data on riders and how they like their bikes to fit, then plot the relationships to each variable. It can be even simpler by looking at manufacturers' geometry charts and plotting correlations between recommended rider heights and recommended frame geometries. It's a simplistic method that doesn't attempt to explain the underlying reasons for various dimensions, but, given enough data and enough time, the numbers will stumble in the right direction until nearly optimized. After more than a century of bike design - and nearly forty years of mountain-specific design - I believe we've reached a point where the data-driven approach is close enough for most riders.

 

[dthree]

I also consulted the RAD method to size my Rise. What i got from it was that the most important dimension was bottom bracket to effective handlebar center. Upthread, some have explained how to check this with the floor or stepladder methods but i didn't have a bike to test at first. So I used the standing in bike stance near a wall holding a marker method to find that dimension. Calculated the RAD of different bikes from online specs using the reach and stack values and right triangle calculator. It wasn't exact, but close enought that I could make adjustments with stem length or bar rise if I needed to.

 

[Podviginag]

Guys any thoughts on Middle size Rise for my 180 cm /5’11 heigth? I now that size chart says LARGE but I don’t mind ig the bike will be small and nimble.

 

[John_A]

Guys any thoughts on Middle size Rise for my 180 cm /5’11 heigth? I now that size chart says LARGE but I don’t mind ig the bike will be small and nimble.

I'm exactly the same height as you and tried a medium and thought it was way too small. The main issue is the very steep seat angle so my knees were almost touching the bars. The large didn't feel big for be by any means

 

[BobR]

Kinda small for sure… I am 6’1” and my wife has a medium Rise and I would never ride that on anything big

 

[BAh30]

Hey folks.
I'm 5'9 174cm. Have a deposit down on an Orbea Rise size M due next week. There weren't any size charts when I was making my choice (or at least I had not seen one) and the main thing driving my size choice was that I found my 2008 Stumpy size L to be be too large. Obviously that's a very different bike. Now that I've seen a chart it looks like 5'9 is slap bang in the middle of Orbea Rise size L range and at the very extreme of the M.

What are your observations on size?

5.8.5 riding a medium. The 597-600mm ETT makes a proportional fit alround

 

[theremotejuggernaut]

Guys any thoughts on Middle size Rise for my 180 cm /5’11 heigth? I now that size chart says LARGE but I don’t mind ig the bike will be small and nimble



I'm 5'7" with a 30" inseam on a medium and it feels a bit short and tall. I think it's the steep seat angle and low stack height. If it wasn't for the stupidly long seat tube, I'd have gone up to a large.

 

[b33k34]

Guys any thoughts on Middle size Rise for my 180 cm /5’11 heigth? I now that size chart says LARGE but I don’t mind ig the bike will be small and nimble



I'm 5'7" with a 30" inseam on a medium and it feels a bit short and tall. I think it's the steep seat angle and low stack height. If it wasn't for the stupidly long seat tube, I'd have gone up to a large.

The 25 rise has shorter seat tubes - size large was 460mm on the original 21 bikes, it's 430 on the 25 model

I'd trust the Orbea size charts. My partner is 165cm and has traditionally been on smalls but is on a Medium rise and it's a good fit.