Interesting about the downsizing. I’m a large on my current trail bike which has a wheel base of 1224 compared to the larger MT of 1266. When I sat on the L it felt huge so maybe a downside is better which is still bigger than my trail. The Bronson L is another option but I’m not really wanting to go mullet. How did you find the reach on a Medium?
To play devil's advocate... The video is mainly jump lines and machined trails with minimal chunk. Definitely can get away with a shorter, both in reach and stack, front end, as your arent having to put much weight over the front. Not mention being in the air a lot. A rutted, rocky and rooted fast downhill will require a front end that you can confidently lean on while braking, soaking up big fas bumps, all while rolling over everything snd not going otb. I ride Snowshoe MTN, UCI stop, and the surrounding area, and small bikes dont work here, unless you are a pro bike handler.
I would not call the megatower at any size a "small bike" lmao have u seen the geo numbers on it. It's basically a playful DH bike. All he's doing by sizing down is shortening his reach and wheelbase a bit for handling, I would hardly call the bike "short" in any manner of the word. As someone who is also the same size and on the cusp of M and L for the MTv2, I am incredibly happy I sized down. It maintains all the DH-like qualities and stable geo that the mega is known for, but since it's shortened up a bit I can control it better around corners, tighter sections, and overall just becomes a bit more flickable. And I live in the PNW if that's worth anything.
@@cpreme4 When comparing two sizes of the same bike the smaller is always going to be....smaller. You are having a major disconnect there. Yes a smaller bike means less reach, smaller wheelbase and you forgot probably the most important stack height, even with raised bars you aren't really raising the bikes center off gravity you are just getting more on top of it as the head tube is the pivot point. With a smaller bike you are losing stability and aren't going to monster truck over things which isn't needed on jump lines and machines downhill. You completely ignored my point.
@@El_JayBubby I'm saying the MTv2 doesn't lose any "monster trucking" ability compared to other enduro bikes even when things get incredibly steep because of the geo. Yeah sure obviously a bigger bike is gonna be more stable in a straight line and going super fast, but harder to move around, it's a tradeoff. I suppose if you're someone who is very inexperienced to the point where a bike that might be small for you could become potentially dangerous in the terrain you're riding in, then sure yeah obviously don't consider downsizing to a smaller bike. But there is a reason enduro racers both pro and amateur usually ride smaller frames. It just tends to be the best of both worlds between control and stability and playfulness and maneuverability, at least with these modern 29 inch enduro bike geometries.
Very correct finding for down sizing
Thanks! Very timely!
Interesting about the downsizing. I’m a large on my current trail bike which has a wheel base of 1224 compared to the larger MT of 1266. When I sat on the L it felt huge so maybe a downside is better which is still bigger than my trail. The Bronson L is another option but I’m not really wanting to go mullet. How did you find the reach on a Medium?
Wish to have bike like this
Its cost about a million in nepal 🇳🇵 .
Lovely video love it 😀
To play devil's advocate...
The video is mainly jump lines and machined trails with minimal chunk. Definitely can get away with a shorter, both in reach and stack, front end, as your arent having to put much weight over the front. Not mention being in the air a lot.
A rutted, rocky and rooted fast downhill will require a front end that you can confidently lean on while braking, soaking up big fas bumps, all while rolling over everything snd not going otb.
I ride Snowshoe MTN, UCI stop, and the surrounding area, and small bikes dont work here, unless you are a pro bike handler.
I would not call the megatower at any size a "small bike" lmao have u seen the geo numbers on it. It's basically a playful DH bike. All he's doing by sizing down is shortening his reach and wheelbase a bit for handling, I would hardly call the bike "short" in any manner of the word. As someone who is also the same size and on the cusp of M and L for the MTv2, I am incredibly happy I sized down. It maintains all the DH-like qualities and stable geo that the mega is known for, but since it's shortened up a bit I can control it better around corners, tighter sections, and overall just becomes a bit more flickable. And I live in the PNW if that's worth anything.
@@cpreme4 When comparing two sizes of the same bike the smaller is always going to be....smaller. You are having a major disconnect there.
Yes a smaller bike means less reach, smaller wheelbase and you forgot probably the most important stack height, even with raised bars you aren't really raising the bikes center off gravity you are just getting more on top of it as the head tube is the pivot point.
With a smaller bike you are losing stability and aren't going to monster truck over things which isn't needed on jump lines and machines downhill. You completely ignored my point.
@@El_JayBubby I'm saying the MTv2 doesn't lose any "monster trucking" ability compared to other enduro bikes even when things get incredibly steep because of the geo. Yeah sure obviously a bigger bike is gonna be more stable in a straight line and going super fast, but harder to move around, it's a tradeoff. I suppose if you're someone who is very inexperienced to the point where a bike that might be small for you could become potentially dangerous in the terrain you're riding in, then sure yeah obviously don't consider downsizing to a smaller bike. But there is a reason enduro racers both pro and amateur usually ride smaller frames. It just tends to be the best of both worlds between control and stability and playfulness and maneuverability, at least with these modern 29 inch enduro bike geometries.