Tall guy frame

Related:
Create New Tag

8/20/2019 2:19 AM

Hi guys!

Getting into bmx but cant figure out what frame size I need.. Im between 6’4-6’5 / 195-200. I had my eyes on a kink backwood in 21.5 for a while.

But yesterday i found another option, David grants frame bsd raider which had a much bigger standover height thats supposed to make bigger setups less twitchy. Sounds nice as im going to run 9.5 or 10 bars.

The bsd frame comes in 21.3 or 21.6, could the 21.3 be enough for me as im a tad shorter than David who rides 21.6 (6’5)?

I read in one thread that a slightly shorter frame & big bars was better for the back as youll stand more upright instead of hunching over the bars. Any tips om the setup is welcomed as im just starting out!

|

8/20/2019 3:14 AM

Hey mate! BMX is a tricky one, because there is no “right” frame size for anyone. For example, I’m 5’9” and I ride a 21.25, it is ultimately down to personal preference. You’ll likely be most comfortable on the 21.5 backwoods or the 21.6 raider. What kind of riding will you be doing? If twitchiness is a concern, a lower BB and longer wheelbase is a better option than a taller standover, at least in my experience.

|

8/20/2019 4:17 AM

Sup man im 6,4 and ride a 21 inch top tube. as brodiebmx said its preference. Same with handlebars, mine feel quite bad at 8,25 but am hopefully getting 10s soon. Good Luck!

|

8/20/2019 5:02 AM

Yes standover brings some stability, we can feel that in the air but unlike chainstay length or bb height I can’t really explain why.

The raider frame got some quite long chainstays and high bb so it’s stable without the (too much) sticked to the ground feel of 11.5” bb’s.

Shorter setups can be better for your back because of the straighter position but it also makes the bike lose some pop, because it tends to loop out when trying to hop really high.

I’m 6’1 and my favorite size is 21.25” with lower bar than most riders now, a friend got a 21” with higher bar and it feels comfy to ride around but harder to really shred on because of the lost pop by a less aggressive position.

Much likely the same deal for you between the 21.6” and the shorter 21.3” just figure out how you want your bike to ride.

|

8/20/2019 5:10 AM

The most over looked thing when it comes to tall guys is stem length and crank arm length if you get a longer stem and shorter cranks it will help make the bike feel a lot more comfortable

My brother is 5”11 went from riding a sunday 24” with a 22” top tube, 48mm madera stem, perfect 10 bars amd 175mm cranks feeling cramped and not having much knee room

Now hes riding a Sunday soundwave 21” top tube 63mm profile stem, s&m elevenz and 160mm profile column cranks and the bike feels perfect to him

|

8/20/2019 9:29 PM

Raspberry wrote:

Sup man im 6,4 and ride a 21 inch top tube. as brodiebmx said its preference. Same with handlebars, mine feel quite bad at 8,25 but am hopefully getting 10s soon. Good Luck!

Going from 8.25 to 10 inch bars is a savage change, should have you looping out in no time!

|

8/20/2019 11:02 PM
Edited Date/Time: 8/20/2019 11:05 PM

The longer your frame's tt is, the taller you can run your bars. The taller the rise is, the closer your bars are to your core. The headtube angle is not 90° to the ground so a shorter frame and taller bars will make you more likely to smack your knees and such on the bars/stem/etc.

|

8/21/2019 1:59 PM

I would personally recommend the 21.6" over the 21.3"... Since you're just starting out that extra room/ comfort (imo) is worth it.

They also have a 21.9" Raider frame...

|

8/22/2019 2:59 AM

BrodieB wrote:

Hey mate! BMX is a tricky one, because there is no “right” frame size for anyone. For example, I’m 5’9” and I ride a 21.25, it is ultimately down to personal preference. You’ll likely be most comfortable on the 21.5 backwoods or the 21.6 raider. What kind of riding will you be doing? If twitchiness is a concern, a lower BB and longer wheelbase is a better option than a taller standover, at least in my experience.

Twitchiness isnt a concern really, it was just something i read a high standover would help with.

Going to ride mostly street i think since we have no skatepark for BMX. Also going to do some pumptrack & a little bit of dirt if the trails are rideable.

|

8/22/2019 11:08 AM

bigboybob wrote:

Twitchiness isnt a concern really, it was just something i read a high standover would help with.

Going to ride mostly street i think since we have no skatepark for BMX. Also going to do some pumptrack & a little bit of dirt if the trails are rideable.

At your height the tall standover is going to be pretty much for "aesthetics". You might "just" be able to sit down and coast with a slammed seat on a 9.5" SO, but probably not be able to pedal unless you have a medium to long seatpost.

I also think 9.5"-ish standovers look a little more proportionate with 9.5"-10" bars, but that's purely subjective.

|

8/26/2019 3:01 AM

What do you guys think about crank arm length? Was about to go with 175mm but heard it was Common to hit the pegs with the feet..

|

8/26/2019 3:28 AM

bigboybob wrote:

What do you guys think about crank arm length? Was about to go with 175mm but heard it was Common to hit the pegs with the feet..

175 has been industry standard since the early 90’s. At your height you probably don’t want chainstays short enough that you’ll hit your foot on your back peg with 175mm cranks. But that also depends on the size of your feet

|

8/26/2019 4:20 AM

bigboybob wrote:

What do you guys think about crank arm length? Was about to go with 175mm but heard it was Common to hit the pegs with the feet..

.pegless. wrote:

175 has been industry standard since the early 90’s. At your height you probably don’t want chainstays short enough that you’ll hit your foot on your back peg with 175mm cranks. But that also depends on the size of your feet

Allright! So i'll be fine with The backwoods frame at 13.5 chainstay, shoes size 12?

|

8/26/2019 12:09 PM

bigboybob wrote:

Allright! So i'll be fine with The backwoods frame at 13.5 chainstay, shoes size 12?

The back of my shoe would periodically hit my rear axle nut (I don't run pegs) with 175mm arms, 13.5" CS and size 11 shoes.

It was annoying enough that I switched to 165mm and now It never happens (would've definitely went 160mm if I ran pegs).

If I could do it again I think I would've just used that $200 to buy a new frame with a 14"-ish CS... Not, because the 165's feel bad (I like them more than the 175's), but 13.5" just feels a little short for me when I hop.

|

8/26/2019 12:41 PM

.pegless. wrote:

175 has been industry standard since the early 90’s. At your height you probably don’t want chainstays short enough that you’ll hit your foot on your back peg with 175mm cranks. But that also depends on the size of your feet

bigboybob wrote:

Allright! So i'll be fine with The backwoods frame at 13.5 chainstay, shoes size 12?

Bryan91 wrote:

The back of my shoe would periodically hit my rear axle nut (I don't run pegs) with 175mm arms, 13.5" CS and size 11 shoes.

It was annoying enough that I switched to 165mm and now It never happens (would've definitely went 160mm if I ran pegs).

If I could do it again I think I would've just used that $200 to buy a new frame with a 14"-ish CS... Not, because the 165's feel bad (I like them more than the 175's), but 13.5" just feels a little short for me when I hop.

I got a barely ridden fiend embryo 2014 I want to get rid off, I sell it cheap.
Geo is 21.25’’ TT/ 13.75’’ slammed chainstays / 11.6’’ BB / 75° hta / 71° seat tube and around 9’’ standover.
Just throwing the offer here in case you are interested.

|

9/3/2019 9:22 AM

Bryan91 wrote:

The back of my shoe would periodically hit my rear axle nut (I don't run pegs) with 175mm arms, 13.5" CS and size 11 shoes.

It was annoying enough that I switched to 165mm and now It never happens (would've definitely went 160mm if I ran pegs).

If I could do it again I think I would've just used that $200 to buy a new frame with a 14"-ish CS... Not, because the 165's feel bad (I like them more than the 175's), but 13.5" just feels a little short for me when I hop.

Allright, does it feel ok pedaling? Not that I plan to Cruise too much, just want as comfortable ride as possible at my length.

|

9/10/2019 9:44 AM

So the build is soon done.. with 165mm cranks would you guys go with a 25 or 28 tooth sprucket?

At first i was going to chose 28 as i wanted more speed. But have no Idea if it Will be exhausting with 165 cranks?

|

9/10/2019 10:04 AM

I run 28-10 and going from 175mm to 165mm wasn't a huge difference at all.

When I have some extra cash I'll definitely be going 30-10, or 28-9.

|

9/10/2019 10:17 AM

Bryan91 wrote:

I run 28-10 and going from 175mm to 165mm wasn't a huge difference at all.

When I have some extra cash I'll definitely be going 30-10, or 28-9.

Allright! Thanks for the input mate, really helpful

|

9/10/2019 11:19 AM

I had 28-9 with 165s, felt fine to me. Kind of more noticeable when trying to ride up a steep hill but that’s it. I could never go smaller than 28 with a 9t driver now, it feels like you don’t go anywhere. And I’d still have 165’s if they had them in stock, but had to settle for 170

|

9/11/2019 2:26 AM

.pegless. wrote:

I had 28-9 with 165s, felt fine to me. Kind of more noticeable when trying to ride up a steep hill but that’s it. I could never go smaller than 28 with a 9t driver now, it feels like you don’t go anywhere. And I’d still have 165’s if they had them in stock, but had to settle for 170

Great news!

So i was about to get the stranger crux XL wheels but the rear wheel went out of stock.
Found the eclat ’trippin x cortex’ rear that was 38mm width campares to the 43mm crux XL rim..
Also found the eclat "Raven X pulse” front wheel that was 36.5mm

Will i notice that the back is 5mm narrower or should i just go with the two eclat wheels for aestetics?

|

9/11/2019 3:51 AM

.pegless. wrote:

I had 28-9 with 165s, felt fine to me. Kind of more noticeable when trying to ride up a steep hill but that’s it. I could never go smaller than 28 with a 9t driver now, it feels like you don’t go anywhere. And I’d still have 165’s if they had them in stock, but had to settle for 170

bigboybob wrote:

Great news!

So i was about to get the stranger crux XL wheels but the rear wheel went out of stock.
Found the eclat ’trippin x cortex’ rear that was 38mm width campares to the 43mm crux XL rim..
Also found the eclat "Raven X pulse” front wheel that was 36.5mm

Will i notice that the back is 5mm narrower or should i just go with the two eclat wheels for aestetics?

You’ll notice, the tire won’t fit the same way (the bigger the rim, the bigger the tire)
but narrower rim on the back isn’t a probem, the opposite would be because if you run two tires of the same size the back would feel bigger than the front, which is annoying, of course it can be compensated with a 2.25’’/2.4’’ combo for example but it’s something to consider before buying rims.

|