Orbea Rise Sizing?

[Mtbnutty]

I'm 183cm. I have short legs (32" pants) and a long torso, and short arms. Also, steep seat tube angles, in the 77 degree range, hurt my knees for the XC riding I do. And I prefer a more upright position due to old lower back injuries. What size Orbea rise should I be riding?

 

[Greg Watts]

I'm 183cm. I have short legs (32" pants) and a long torso, and short arms. Also, steep seat tube angles, in the 77 degree range, hurt my knees for the XC riding I do. And I prefer a more upright position due to old lower back injuries. What size Orbea rise should I be riding?

At 183cm you'd normally be right on the boundary between M and L on the Orbea Rise. But your specific proportions make this more interesting than a simple height chart.

The issue is that the Rise runs a 77° seat tube angle across M and L sizes, which is exactly the angle you've flagged as problematic for your knees. That's worth addressing upfront because no amount of sizing gymnastics will change the STA. You can mitigate it somewhat with a setback seatpost (something like a 20mm offset post), which effectively slackens your seated position by roughly a degree, but it's a workaround rather than a cure.

@Mtbnutty, this is a genuinely tricky one because your proportions are pulling in different directions. Let me work through it. At 183cm, Orbea's sizing guide would normally put you squarely in the L.

The Rise LT in size L has a reach of 480mm and a 77° effective seat angle with 440mm chainstays.

The M comes in at 455mm reach. Given your long torso, the L's reach would normally be the right call, as short-torso riders are the ones who typically need to size down. But your short arms complicate things because that extra reach means more weight on your hands and a more stretched-out cockpit, which is exactly what your back doesn't want.

Here's where I'd land: the M is probably your better option, but with some cockpit adjustments. The 455mm reach is more manageable for shorter arms, and you can accommodate your long torso with a higher stack rather than more reach. A set of 30-40mm riser bars (or even just a higher rise stem) will give you that upright position your back needs without forcing you to stretch forward. A shorter stem in the 40-50mm range will also keep things compact and reduce the forward lean.

Now, the elephant in the room: the seat angle is 77° on the Rise LT, and you've specifically said that angle bothers your knees. If you go with the Rise LT, the high flip chip position steepens the seat tube angle by 0.5°, which would take it to 77.5°, so that's going the wrong direction for you. A setback seatpost (20mm offset) would effectively slacken your seated hip position by roughly a degree, bringing it closer to 76° at the knee, which might be enough to keep things comfortable.

The Rise SL has a fixed geometry at 78° seat angle and 65.5° head angle, so that would be even worse for your knees. Worth noting that

Orbea's Steep'n'Deep seatpost insertion means any frame size fits a 200mm dropper, with larger sizes accommodating up to 240mm, so with your 32" inseam you'll have plenty of dropper range even on the M.

Short version: M frame, shorter stem, riser bars, and seriously consider a setback seatpost to mitigate the STA issue. If that 77° is genuinely a hard no for your knees even with the setback, it might be worth looking at bikes with slacker seat tubes before committing.

 

[Mtbnutty]

At 183cm you'd normally be right on the boundary between M and L on the Orbea Rise. But your specific proportions make this more interesting than a simple height chart.

The issue is that the Rise runs a 77° seat tube angle across M and L sizes, which is exactly the angle you've flagged as problematic for your knees. That's worth addressing upfront because no amount of sizing gymnastics will change the STA. You can mitigate it somewhat with a setback seatpost (something like a 20mm offset post), which effectively slackens your seated position by roughly a degree, but it's a workaround rather than a cure.

@Mtbnutty, this is a genuinely tricky one because your proportions are pulling in different directions. Let me work through it. At 183cm, Orbea's sizing guide would normally put you squarely in the L.

The Rise LT in size L has a reach of 480mm and a 77° effective seat angle with 440mm chainstays.

The M comes in at 455mm reach. Given your long torso, the L's reach would normally be the right call, as short-torso riders are the ones who typically need to size down. But your short arms complicate things because that extra reach means more weight on your hands and a more stretched-out cockpit, which is exactly what your back doesn't want.

Here's where I'd land: the M is probably your better option, but with some cockpit adjustments. The 455mm reach is more manageable for shorter arms, and you can accommodate your long torso with a higher stack rather than more reach. A set of 30-40mm riser bars (or even just a higher rise stem) will give you that upright position your back needs without forcing you to stretch forward. A shorter stem in the 40-50mm range will also keep things compact and reduce the forward lean.

Now, the elephant in the room: the seat angle is 77° on the Rise LT, and you've specifically said that angle bothers your knees. If you go with the Rise LT, the high flip chip position steepens the seat tube angle by 0.5°, which would take it to 77.5°, so that's going the wrong direction for you. A setback seatpost (20mm offset) would effectively slacken your seated hip position by roughly a degree, bringing it closer to 76° at the knee, which might be enough to keep things comfortable.

The Rise SL has a fixed geometry at 78° seat angle and 65.5° head angle, so that would be even worse for your knees. Worth noting that

Orbea's Steep'n'Deep seatpost insertion means any frame size fits a 200mm dropper, with larger sizes accommodating up to 240mm, so with your 32" inseam you'll have plenty of dropper range even on the M.

Short version: M frame, shorter stem, riser bars, and seriously consider a setback seatpost to mitigate the STA issue. If that 77° is genuinely a hard no for your knees even with the setback, it might be worth looking at bikes with slacker seat tubes before committing.

I've thrown my legs over a M and it seems way too short.
I also have a Ibis Ripley V4 in XL with a 20mm setback dropper, 50mm stem and 50mm riser bars. The fit on this bike seems reasonable. How would the fit on the Ripley compare to an Orbea Rise?

 

[Greg Watts]

I've thrown my legs over a M and it seems way too short. I also have a Ibis Ripley V4 in XL with a 20mm setback dropper, 50mm stem and 50mm riser bars. The fit on this bike seems reasonable. How would the fit on the Ripley compare to an Orbea Rise?

Right, @Mtbnutty, that changes everything. Your Ripley V4 XL is a proper reference point to work with.

The XL has a 500mm reach and 66.5° head angle, whilst the 76° seat angle with your setback post effectively gives you closer to 74°.

Comparing that to the Rise geometry: the XL Rise has 515mm reach and 78° seat angle (even steeper than the L at 77°). So you'd actually be going from a 500mm reach on your current bike to either 455mm (M) or 480mm (L) on the Rise. That's a massive 45-55mm reduction in reach, which explains why the M felt "way too short" when you threw your leg over it.

Given your successful setup on the Ripley XL, the Rise L would be the closer match at 480mm reach, but it's still 20mm shorter than what you're used to. Combined with the steeper seat angle working against your knees, this is looking increasingly problematic.

The Rise simply runs much shorter and steeper than modern trail bikes like your Ripley. Ibis added 45mm of reach to the V4

specifically to modernise the geometry, whilst Orbea kept the Rise more conservative. Your body has adapted to that longer, slacker position, so stepping back to the Rise's dimensions might feel cramped and put you in exactly the forward, steep position your back and knees don't want.

If the M felt too short and the geometry doesn't suit your proportions, it might be worth considering whether the Rise is the right platform at all.

 

[Mtbnutty]

Right, @Mtbnutty, that changes everything. Your Ripley V4 XL is a proper reference point to work with.

The XL has a 500mm reach and 66.5° head angle, whilst the 76° seat angle with your setback post effectively gives you closer to 74°.

Comparing that to the Rise geometry: the XL Rise has 515mm reach and 78° seat angle (even steeper than the L at 77°). So you'd actually be going from a 500mm reach on your current bike to either 455mm (M) or 480mm (L) on the Rise. That's a massive 45-55mm reduction in reach, which explains why the M felt "way too short" when you threw your leg over it.

Given your successful setup on the Ripley XL, the Rise L would be the closer match at 480mm reach, but it's still 20mm shorter than what you're used to. Combined with the steeper seat angle working against your knees, this is looking increasingly problematic.

The Rise simply runs much shorter and steeper than modern trail bikes like your Ripley. Ibis added 45mm of reach to the V4

specifically to modernise the geometry, whilst Orbea kept the Rise more conservative. Your body has adapted to that longer, slacker position, so stepping back to the Rise's dimensions might feel cramped and put you in exactly the forward, steep position your back and knees don't want.

If the M felt too short and the geometry doesn't suit your proportions, it might be worth considering whether the Rise is the right platform at all.

If the Rise might not be the platform for me, what full suspension ebike frame may be better suited to my needs?

 

[Greg Watts]

If the Rise might not be the platform for me, what full suspension ebike frame may be better suited to my needs?

Good question, and worth thinking through properly given your proportions. The core issue is that you need a longer reach than most lightweight eMTBs offer, combined with a seat tube angle that isn't going to aggravate your knees. At 183cm with a long torso and short arms, you want something closer to that 500mm reach your Ripley XL gives you, ideally with a seat angle south of 77°.

Let me pull some geometry on the obvious candidates. Right, @Mtbnutty, let's work through this properly. You need a lightweight eMTB with longer reach than the Rise offers, combined with a seat angle that won't murder your knees. The key numbers from your Ripley XL are 500mm reach and an effective ~74° seat angle with your setback post. That's our target.

Here are three platforms worth investigating: Trek Fuel+ (2026) - This is the rebranded Fuel EXe successor.

It runs the TQ HPR60 motor with 60Nm of torque and 350W of peak power, so it's firmly in the lightweight eMTB category. The big selling point for you is that the geometry is identical between the Fuel and Fuel+, and the size Large runs a 64.5° head angle, 77.4° effective seat angle, and 480mm reach. That 480mm reach matches the Rise L, so it won't solve your reach shortfall on its own. However, the XL should push past 500mm (the previous Fuel EXe XL sat at 510-515mm reach), and the frame has enormous adjustability: by changing the rocker link, lower shock mount, shock stroke and fork air spring, riders can change the amount of travel and switch between 27.5" and 29" rear wheels. The seat angle is still steep at 77°+ though, which brings us back to the knee concern.

Specialized Levo SL 2 - The current generation uses the Specialized 1.2 SL motor (50Nm, 320W) with a fully integrated 320Wh battery and has

adjustable geometry and mixed-wheel compatibility. The Levo SL runs a 64.6° head angle, 470mm reach in the S4, and 432mm chainstays across all sizes. Specialized uses S1-S6 sizing, so the S5 would be your natural size and should land around 495mm reach based on the size progression. The geometry adjustability is a genuine advantage here because you can play with head angle and BB height to dial things in. The catch is the smaller battery (320Wh) and less torque than the TQ-based options, though

reviewers described it as "The most non-eBike riding eBike" which might appeal if you're coming from the Ripley. Still steep on the seat angle though.

The seat angle problem - And this is the elephant in the room. Nearly every modern lightweight eMTB runs 76-78° seat angles because the motors and batteries push the centre of gravity forward. Your knees want something closer to 74-75°. A setback seatpost will help (you're already running one on the Ripley), and on a 77° seat tube a 20mm setback post effectively gives you around 75-75.5°, which might be tolerable. It's not ideal, but it's the same trick you're using now. The alternative is looking at full-power eMTBs which tend to run slacker seat angles (74-76°), but then you lose the lightweight character entirely.

If NorCal XC riding is the priority and you want something that'll fit your proportions without fighting the geometry, the Trek Fuel+ in XL or the Levo SL in S5 are your best starting points, both with a setback post to tame the seat angle. I'd also keep an eye on the Atherton S.170E if you want something with more size options: it's available in 12 sizes with 405-515mm reach and seat angles from 75.6-77.6°, which means you could potentially find a size that nails your reach without the seat angle going nuclear. That said, it's more of an enduro platform than an XC one.

I can dig deeper into any of these, or look at full-power options if you're open to more weight in exchange for better geometry.

EDIT: @rabitec reports A user with similar proportions (177cm with 32" inseam) owns an Orbea Rise in size L and finds it fits well, suggesting it would also suit the original questioner, directly contradicting Greg's cautio. Not yet independently verified — take with a pinch of salt.

 

[Mtbnutty]

Yes. please suggest full power options.

 

[Mtbnutty]

Still waiting.............

 

[rabitec]

To your original question - I am 177cm but also 32" inseam. I own an Orbea Rise in size L with a 180mm seatpost dropper and it feels the right size for me. I think it would suit you, too.

 

[Greg Watts]

Genuinely useful real-world data point there, @rabitec. At 177cm with a 32" inseam rabitec is actually proportionally quite different to @Mtbnutty - you share the same leg length but you're 6cm taller, meaning you're carrying that extra height in your torso. That makes you a tweener rather than a straightforward size match, so the L recommendation doesn't automatically transfer.

For reference, the 2025 Rise in size L sits at 480mm reach and 633mm stack with a 65° head angle and 445mm chainstays. That's a solid amount of room for longer legs, and the 77° seat tube angle should keep you well positioned over the pedals without feeling cramped. The 180mm dropper is a smart call at that inseam length too, since you'll want every millimetre of drop you can get.

@Mtbnutty, given your longer torso relative to rabitec, the L vs XL decision is less clear-cut than it first appeared. The extra reach in the XL might actually suit your proportions better, even if your inseam is identical. Worth checking standover clearance in person if you can, and I'd strongly recommend comparing L against XL on the geometry chart. I've got the full size run numbers if you want to run through them side by side.

EDIT: Corrected my comparison between Mtbnutty and rabitec - they share the same 32" inseam but Mtbnutty is 6cm taller, meaning the extra height sits in the torso, making them a tweener rather than proportionally similar. Thanks @Mtbnutty for the heads up.

 

[Mtbnutty]

Well, rabitec and I have the same length legs but I am 6cm taller. I also have somewhat short arms. This is what makes me a tweener, I think.

 

[Greg Watts]

Well, rabitec and I have the same length legs but I am 6cm taller. I also have somewhat short arms. This is what makes me a tweener, I think.

That's a fair point, @Mtbnutty. Same 32" inseam but 183cm versus 177cm means your extra 6cm is almost entirely in the torso and arms, and then you say the arms are on the shorter side too. So you've got a long torso competing with short arms for cockpit real estate. Classic tweener territory.

The thing with the Rise L at 480mm reach is that it's not especially long by modern standards. With your proportions, you probably won't feel stretched out on it. The 77° seat angle will push you forward over the pedals, which actually helps riders with longer torsos feel less cramped vertically. But if the arms are genuinely short, you might find yourself running a very short stem (40-45mm) and high-rise bars to bring the grips back and up. That's not unusual and it's a perfectly valid setup, but it does change the steering character a bit.

Worth noting your Ibis Ripley V4 XL experience here. You've already landed on a 50mm stem with 50mm risers and a setback dropper to make that work, which tells me you know the drill of adapting cockpit to your proportions. The question is whether the Rise L gives you enough room in the torso without the reach being too long for your arms, or whether the M would keep the arms happy but leave you feeling folded up with those long legs.

If at all possible, throw a leg over both sizes. But if I had to pick one sight unseen for your proportions, the L with a short stem and decent rise bars is the more versatile starting point. Going up a stem length is easy; fitting long legs into a frame that's fundamentally too small is not. I've got the M geometry numbers if you want to compare the two side by side.