Forum

http://www.mbr.co.uk/news/size-matters- ... all-321374
http://www.mbr.co.uk/news/bike_news/siz ... ing-323289
http://www.mbr.co.uk/news/bike_news/siz ... cks-324160

Came across this a few weeks back, interesting read, agree with a lots and disagree with some bits...

Great read Matt!

http://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/news/artic ... deo-44372/

another interesting vid all related to geometry, what mountain bike mag built two hardtails to see what extremes worked or not

Interesting vid mate, and food for thought when I build a frame later this year

This was a good read.. In skiing you have different skis and boots for beginners all the way through to advanced. Cant see why biking should be any different.. I think the long and slack geo really helps if you ride aggressively and are active on the bike. That wasn't me when I first started so would probably have felt awful.

When I came to getting my new frame I spent a long time looking at the geometry (top tube length, reach, head angle, seat tube angle and seat tube height), my meta in a medium comes with a 595mm top tube, a large would be 620mm. The top tube on the banshee is 590mm medium and 615mm large (when for a large frame so my reach has lengthen by 20mm though I am running a 10mm shorter stem. My head angle is slacker at 66 degrees V 67 degrees (though I expect it to be slacker as I am running 160mm fork instead of 140mm) so the wheel base is a lot longer as well now (1148mm V 1179mm) .

I also looked at a number of other bike geometry that i had also ridden including the mondraker foxy, kona process and bird Arial (all designed a round a longer reach and short stem as standard. The foxy tt is 630mm, process 600mm and Arial 625mm. Some big differences between manufacturers though the mondraker is designed around a 10mm direct mount stem.