rise size and stability
- Thread starter LITHOS
- Start date
I would say medium.
The bike is quite stable IMO.
The bike is quite stable IMO.
enewb
Member
Medium
And you'd be correct
Mate it's possible to do rocky terrain at low speed on any bike. Rider skill and suspension set up matter way more than the actual bike or it's size.
But having said that you are quite short and a larger bike with a shorter dropper post will be a lot more difficult for you to maneuver
I'd say get the one that suits your local trails best. When you are in between size you get to choose. If your trails are very fast and require stability go with the bigger one. If you value agility and have good balance go with the smaller. It's can be a bit more demanding to ride a smaller bike, less room for mistakes and might not be as fast at some places but it rewards you with more fun.
Hello, I'm 1m78, with small legs, I've choose a size M for more playfulness, and he is very stable, il love this bike. For comparison before I've a Lapierre zesty 514 size M, it wasn't stable but more playful, and a haibike fullseven lt 7.0 size L, he was too much stable and no playful, boring bike, like a motorcycle.
I'm 5' 8.5" with 29.5" inside leg and have just got my Rise.My other bikes are mediums and I always thought just a little small.I was in-between M and L and went with large.Seat post is all the way in and ok for not locking out my leg . Standover just about ok but tight
Yup if you are in between, either would work in reality
George_KSL
Active member
Did anyone ever said "no, my bike fits just ok, should have chosen different maybe" :- D ? Everyone just confirms their own choice.
- Thread starter
- #15
in fact I have a bmc trailfox amp in size s and I'm happy, but it has the top tube 1 cm longer than the rise because it has a less inclined seat tube (but the reach is about 1 cm shorter).
For 166 Orbea recommends mediums; but I prefer a manageable bike.
I am aware that shorter bike = less stability on the fast forehand.
But I prefer slow, technical trails.
I have seen that many people even in online reviews have chosen the smaller one between two sizes to have more playful bikes.
For 166 Orbea recommends mediums; but I prefer a manageable bike.
I am aware that shorter bike = less stability on the fast forehand.
But I prefer slow, technical trails.
I have seen that many people even in online reviews have chosen the smaller one between two sizes to have more playful bikes.
The fairly tall Aussie guy who just won the EWS overall rides a smaller reach frame than most punters his height will tell you they *need*
Going fast off road on technical terrain is not just about maximum stability.
Hyping the benefits of a longer reach and bigger wheels for sure helps sell new bikes to punters. But with a longer bike there's still always going to be the downside of reduction in maneuverability
Going fast off road on technical terrain is not just about maximum stability.
Hyping the benefits of a longer reach and bigger wheels for sure helps sell new bikes to punters. But with a longer bike there's still always going to be the downside of reduction in maneuverability
That is impressive..
Brings new meaning to the term pedal strikes
Brings new meaning to the term pedal strikes
It depends what you want out of the ride.
If you want an agile bike go for smaller. If you want a more forgiving ride, go longer. Slightly more room for error. Probably most of the people who buy bikes don't give a flying F about what EWS riders can do on a smaller frame, they just want to have fun, and what is fun for one might not be fun for another. There isn't really a clear cut right or wrong, although I agree that a lot of people are riding hilariously long bikes.
EMTB Forums
Latest articles
-
Introducing the Forestal e-Cygnus - a downcountry and XC emtb
The new Forestal e-Cygnus is a slightly unusual emtb. It comes in two... -
2025 M1 Sporttechnik EN 8.0 review
The M1 EN is one of four M1 models built on the same frame. Well, it’s...