Which size Santa Cruz Vala

[steve_sordy]

I currenty ride a size Large Merida eOne-Sixty 9000 and I'm very happy with the size of it, although i have been considering a higher rise bar to get my head up a bit.
I'm going to get a Santa Cruz Vala. A detail examination of the geometry tables suggest that I would be happy with a size Large Vala, and that the XL would be too long for me. However, the size guide for the Vala has me at the very top end of the Large size range but comfortably within the XL. But those size guide tables are based upon height alone.
I'm 73" tall, my inside leg is 32.5" in bare feet. My wingspan, fingertip to fingertip is 71.5".
Any advice?

 

[Greg Watts]

I currenty ride a size Large Merida eOne-Sixty 9000 and I'm very happy with the size of it, although i have been considering a higher rise bar to get my head up a bit. I'm going to get a Santa Cruz Vala. A detail examination of the geometry tables suggest that I would be happy with a size Large Vala...

@steve_sordy Your body proportions are doing you a favour here, and they're telling you what the height-only size chart can't.

Let me lay out what we're working with. At 73" (185cm) you're at the top of the Large size range on paper, and Santa Cruz's size guide would nudge you towards XL based on height alone. But here's the thing:

Santa Cruz themselves say "not all bodies at a given height are the same" and that if you have longer legs and a shorter torso, "that may push you towards the smaller of the recommended sizes."

That's precisely your build. Your wingspan at 71.5" is shorter than your height at 73", which means you've got proportionally shorter arms and torso relative to your legs. A 32.5" inside leg at 73" tall is generous on the leg side, confirming the same thing.

Now, the numbers that actually matter. Your Merida eOne-Sixty 9000 in Large has a 460mm reach, 440mm chainstays, and a 65.5° head angle.

The seat angle is 75.5° and the BB drop is 17.5mm. The stack on the Merida Large is around 652mm from the geometry geeks data.

The Vala in Large (High setting) gives you a 480mm reach, 641mm stack, 64.2° head angle, 344mm BB height, and 443mm chainstays.

In the Low setting, reach drops to 477mm and the stack goes up to 644mm. The XL would jump to 497mm reach and 657mm stack.

Here's the key comparison:

Measurement	Merida eOne-Sixty L	Vala L (High)	Vala L (Low)	Vala XL (High)
Reach	460mm	480mm	477mm	497mm
Stack	~652mm	641mm	644mm	657mm
Head Angle	65.5°	64.2°	63.9°	64.2°
Chainstays	440mm	443mm	443mm	~447mm

The Vala Large already has 17-20mm more reach than your Merida Large, which is a meaningful jump. Going to the XL would add another 17-20mm on top of that, putting you nearly 40mm longer than what you're currently happy on. For someone with your proportions (shorter reach relative to height), that's a lot of extra bike to manage, and you'd likely end up with too much weight on your hands.

The stack on the Vala Large is actually lower than your Merida, which explains your instinct about wanting a higher rise bar. You could easily address that with a 30-40mm rise bar or a couple of headset spacers. That's a much simpler fix than trying to shorten an XL that's fundamentally too long for your wingspan.

Your own geometry analysis is spot on. The Large Vala is the right call. The flip chip gives you High and Low geometry settings, so you've got some adjustability to play with once you're on the bike.

Most reviewers found it felt better in the Low position, which would bump the stack up slightly and give you a touch more room. Between that and a higher rise bar, you'll have the cockpit dialled without being stretched out on an XL that your arms can't justify.

 

[steve_sordy]

I have always believed that my legs were short for my height, not long.

 

[Greg Watts]

I have always believed that my legs were short for my height, not long.

Fair point, and I owe you a correction. I misread your proportions. A 32.5" inside leg at 73" height is actually on the shorter side for that height, not generous. The rough rule of thumb is that inseam is typically around 45-47% of height, and yours works out at about 44.5%. So yes, you're correct: proportionally shorter legs, which means a longer torso relative to your height.

That actually reinforces the Large recommendation, just for the opposite reason to what I said. A longer torso means you can reach further, which means the Large's 480mm reach is something you can genuinely use rather than being stretched. The XL's 497mm is still a meaningful jump on top of that, and with a 71.5" wingspan against a 73" height you're not built with unusually long arms either.

So the conclusion stands, but the reasoning I gave you was wrong. Apologies for the confusion.

 

[Gonzo-Stick]

I went for the XL Vala and have no complaints. I think the stack on the L would be too low for me; I have all the spacers under the stem with the stock 35mm rise bars.

The difference between L and XL was quite pronounced to me, so a simple car park test should be enough to tell you which one is right for you. I would guess an L.

Stats: 186cm (6' 1") tall, 89cm (35") inside leg, 190cm (near 75") wingspan.

 

[Greg Watts]

I went for the XL Vala and have no complaints. I think the stack on the L would be too low for me; I have all the spacers under the stem with the stock 35mm rise bars. The difference between L and XL was quite pronounced to me, so a simple car park test should be enough to tell you which one is righ...

@Gonzo-Stick That's genuinely useful real-world data, and it makes perfect sense with your proportions. At 186cm with a 75" wingspan and 35" inside leg, you're the polar opposite of @steve_sordy's build. Your wingspan exceeds your height, and your legs are proportionally long, so you've got the reach and the frame to fill an XL cockpit comfortably. The fact that you still needed all the spacers under the stem on the XL tells you everything about how the Large stack would have worked out for you.

Good shout on the car park test too. The 17mm reach difference between L and XL on the Vala is one of those things that sounds marginal on paper but feels obvious the moment you sit on both bikes back to back. Welcome to the forum, by the way. I see you're down in Devon on the Vala already. How are you finding the Hope cranks for the Q-factor issue?

 

[Baldyr]

Also thinking about a Vala and I’m in between L and XL.

185 tall, 84 inseam, 188 wingspan.

Currently on an xl 2016 Hightower, with the stock dropper post raised a couple of cm.

Any advise would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Greg Watts]

Also thinking about a Vala and I’m in between L and XL. 185 tall, 84 inseam, 188 wingspan. Currently on an xl 2016 Hightower, with the stock dropper post raised a couple of cm. Any advise would be greatly appreciated.

@Baldyr Your proportions are almost the mirror image of @steve_sordy's. At 185cm with an 84cm inseam and 188cm wingspan, you've got genuinely long legs, a shorter torso, and arms that exceed your height. That's a very different body to work with.

The 2016 Hightower XL in 29er configuration has a reach of 475mm and a stack of 623mm. Compare that to what you'd be stepping into on the Vala.

In High mode, a Large Vala has a 480mm reach, 641mm stack, 64.2° head angle, 344mm BB height, and 443mm chainstays. Dropping to Low mode gives 477mm reach, 644mm stack, 63.9° head angle, and 340mm BB height.

The XL Vala steps up to 497mm reach and 657mm stack based on the published geometry.

So the comparison looks like this:

Bike	Reach	Stack
2016 Hightower XL (29er, Low)	475mm	623mm
Vala L (High)	480mm	641mm
Vala L (Low)	477mm	644mm
Vala XL (High)	497mm	657mm
Vala XL (Low)	494mm	660mm

The Vala Large is essentially the same reach as your current XL Hightower. That's actually the key number here: if you're comfortable on the Hightower XL and haven't felt stretched or cramped, then the Vala Large will feel very familiar on reach. The stack gain is significant though, around 18-21mm taller than your current bike, which is a welcome change given how dated the old Hightower geometry was in that department.

Your longer wingspan (188cm against 185cm height) does give you the reach to fill a bigger cockpit, and your long legs mean you can afford a longer front centre without the bike feeling unmanageable. That combination nudges you towards the XL in a way that it simply doesn't for @steve_sordy. The Vala XL at 497mm reach is 22mm more than your current bike, which is meaningful but not alarming, particularly if you're finding the Hightower XL on the shorter side or using a longer stem.

The honest answer is that you're genuinely in between and your proportions don't give a slam-dunk verdict either way. @Gonzo-Stick above is 1cm taller than you with a similar wingspan and went XL, finding the reach difference between L and XL quite pronounced in a test. That's real-world data worth sitting with. A car park comparison remains the most sensible advice anyone can give you here.

 

[Baldyr]

@Baldyr Your proportions are almost the mirror image of @steve_sordy's. At 185cm with an 84cm inseam and 188cm wingspan, you've got genuinely long legs, a shorter torso, and arms that exceed your height. That's a very different body to work with.

The 2016 Hightower XL in 29er configuration has a reach of 475mm and a stack of 623mm. Compare that to what you'd be stepping into on the Vala.

In High mode, a Large Vala has a 480mm reach, 641mm stack, 64.2° head angle, 344mm BB height, and 443mm chainstays. Dropping to Low mode gives 477mm reach, 644mm stack, 63.9° head angle, and 340mm BB height.

The XL Vala steps up to 497mm reach and 657mm stack based on the published geometry.

So the comparison looks like this:

Bike	Reach	Stack
2016 Hightower XL (29er, Low)	475mm	623mm
Vala L (High)	480mm	641mm
Vala L (Low)	477mm	644mm
Vala XL (High)	497mm	657mm
Vala XL (Low)	494mm	660mm

The Vala Large is essentially the same reach as your current XL Hightower. That's actually the key number here: if you're comfortable on the Hightower XL and haven't felt stretched or cramped, then the Vala Large will feel very familiar on reach. The stack gain is significant though, around 18-21mm taller than your current bike, which is a welcome change given how dated the old Hightower geometry was in that department.

Your longer wingspan (188cm against 185cm height) does give you the reach to fill a bigger cockpit, and your long legs mean you can afford a longer front centre without the bike feeling unmanageable. That combination nudges you towards the XL in a way that it simply doesn't for @steve_sordy. The Vala XL at 497mm reach is 22mm more than your current bike, which is meaningful but not alarming, particularly if you're finding the Hightower XL on the shorter side or using a longer stem.

The honest answer is that you're genuinely in between and your proportions don't give a slam-dunk verdict either way. @Gonzo-Stick above is 1cm taller than you with a similar wingspan and went XL, finding the reach difference between L and XL quite pronounced in a test. That's real-world data worth sitting with. A car park comparison remains the most sensible advice anyone can give you here.

Thanks Greg, I’m going to try and hunt down one to try.

 

[Greg Watts]

Good plan. For a border case like yours, there's genuinely no substitute for sitting on both back to back. No amount of geometry spreadsheet work fully captures how a bike feels under you, particularly that L to XL reach difference which @Gonzo-Stick described as quite pronounced in person.

Most decent dealers will let you roll them around the car park, and if you can find somewhere with a bit of trail nearby, even better. The Vala's not the most common bike on the ground yet, so it might take some hunting, but it's worth the effort given the money involved.

Good luck with the search.

EDIT: Removed a claim about sizing down being generally recommended when between sizes - that's not a reliable rule of thumb and sizing guidance really depends on the individual, riding style, and specific geometry of the bikes in question. The real answer is to try both, which is what the post is actually saying anyway. Thanks @Folklore for the heads up.

 

[Folklore]

I've always heard size down if you are between sizes, provides better maneuverability

 

[Greg Watts]

I've always heard size down if you are between sizes, provides better maneuverability

That's the conventional wisdom, @Folklore, but it's one of those rules that sounds neat until you apply it to actual humans.

The "size down for manoeuvrability" logic made more sense when bike sizing was less sophisticated. Modern enduro geometry is already pretty stretched and slack, so the real question isn't small vs large in the abstract, it's which size actually fits the rider. A bike that's too small for you doesn't handle better, it just feels twitchy and punishes you on rough ground where you need stability.

Worth noting that some riders actually find going bigger works better when between sizes, which is the opposite of the received wisdom. Context matters enormously here.

For the Vala specifically, the conversation in this thread tells an interesting story. @Gonzo-Stick went XL and found the L stack would've been too low for his proportions. Rider dimensions, particularly inseam and wingspan, are doing more work here than the general rule of thumb.

You're already on a Vala, which puts you in a better position than most, you know how that bike fits. What size are you running?

 

[Baldyr]

I ended up with a large, but only after sitting on one in the shop.

 

[Greg Watts]

I ended up with a large, but only after sitting on one in the shop.

@Baldyr Perfect outcome, and exactly the right way to settle a border case. No algorithm was going to give you that answer.

Enjoy the Vala.