Should I give up on standover height?

Banned!

Im about 5'6 and have pretty short legs and if i was to go for a bike with 2 inches of clearance I would be stuck with a trials bike or a bloody bmx!

i usually go with a 17" frame because thats most comfortable for me, anything else would fel silly.

ive never whacked my sack on the top tube of any bike though.

supertwisted

I'm pretty sure my final choice will be the Rockhopper. Aside from the Commie it's had the best standover yet.

The Commencal was/is great, but, not quite the bike I'm after. It's a great trail centre bike, but, a lot of my time will be spent on flat routes local to me and the short reach will tire quickly I expect.

The 2008 V-Brake 'Hopper is only £350. The components alone are worth nearly that, so if I find a more suitable frame later on I can swap the bits and still get a good price for the Hopper's frame.

supertwisted

I'm pretty sure my final choice will be the Rockhopper. Aside from the Commie it's had the best standover yet.

The Commencal was/is great, but, not quite the bike I'm after. It's a great trail centre bike, but, a lot of my time will be spent on flat routes local to me and the short reach will tire quickly I expect.

The 2008 V-Brake 'Hopper is only £350. The components alone are worth nearly that, so if I find a more suitable frame later on I can swap the bits and still get a good price for the Hopper's frame.

ragged1100

I'm 5'8", 29" leg, I've just bought a medium Scott Aspect 45. Just a suggestion.

Ragged

KnightofCydonia

Had problems with this yesterday. It felt wrong on the 17" bikes I tried, as i struggled on standover height (talking mms available) and also felt the reach wasn't nearly enough on a P7. I don't think I should go down to a 15 or 16" for the reach issues but im unsure on what i'll do. A 20.5" marin i tried felt more comfortable to standover than the 17" p7 :shock:

andrewjoseph

When you come off the bike you are not going to be worried about standover height, it will be the huge pointy rock or the rather solid looking tree.

the only time standover will be an issue is when stopped with both feet on the ground testing for standover height.

get the bike that feels comfortable when riding in the saddle.

seat height and seat to bar length are the things to worry about. Too small a frame will mean the seat post will be near its limit when at proper seat height, or you will need a long stem to prevent feeling 'tucked up'. Too big a frame will have you stretched out too far.

andrewjoseph

supertwisted wrote:

..

Cockpit felt a tiny bit cramped, but I think a marginally longer stem and/or sliding the seat back will save it.

the saddle rail adjustment is for knee/pedal alignment, i.e. the front of the knee should be over the axle of the pedal when the cranks are horizontal. Saddle fore/aft adjustment should not be used to for reach adjustment, change the stem or frame, but look after your knees.

supertwisted

KnightofCydonia wrote:

Had problems with this yesterday. It felt wrong on the 17" bikes I tried, as i struggled on standover height (talking mms available) and also felt the reach wasn't nearly enough on a P7. I don't think I should go down to a 15 or 16" for the reach issues but im unsure on what i'll do. A 20.5" marin i tried felt more comfortable to standover than the 17" p7 :shock:

Just keep trying different bikes. Gets frustrating after a while, but there's no other way it seems. As you've found, manufacturers claimed sizes mean not a lot in the flesh.

My purchase has been put on hold as I've had to spend out on the car recently, so I'll keep looking in case I find anything better than the 'hopper for size.

supertwisted

andrewjoseph wrote:

supertwisted wrote:

..

Cockpit felt a tiny bit cramped, but I think a marginally longer stem and/or sliding the seat back will save it.

the saddle rail adjustment is for knee/pedal alignment, i.e. the front of the knee should be over the axle of the pedal when the cranks are horizontal. Saddle fore/aft adjustment should not be used to for reach adjustment, change the stem or frame, but look after your knees.

Yeah I had similar thoughts myself, hence I decided against it.

I think the dilemma I face is the balance of feeling comfortable on the bike (ie correct size and reach) versus feeling confident on the bike (lots of standover and a sense of being able to move it around underneath me).

andrewjoseph

supertwisted wrote:

...
I think the dilemma I face is the balance of feeling comfortable on the bike (ie correct size and reach) versus feeling confident on the bike (lots of standover and a sense of being able to move it around underneath me).

When you are pedaling you are sitting on the saddle, standover is not an issue.
When you are rolling over over rough terrain and standing up, you are several inches higher, standover is much less of an issue.
When you are railing around a corner with the outside foot down the saddle is tight against your thigh, standover is not an issue.

the point is, you can't move the bike around underneath you unless you are standing on the pedals, when you do this you have loads of room.

The main issue with moving around the bike is saddle height, if it is too high you can't get off the back of the saddle easily.

I'm 5'8" ish, 28" inside leg, I ride a 17.5' marin MV with just about 1' standover. i have never squashed my plums on the top tube when riding. i have come off many, many times, bashed my 'member' on the stem, bruised the inside of my thighs on the top tube, broken ribs, helmets shoes, etc. but never squashed my testicles.

The only time my nuts get close to the toptube through normal riding is when stopped with both feet on the ground.

to achieve this when riding you would have to take both feet of the pedals at the same time and let yourself drop onto the toptube.

let me know when you plan to do this, I'll bring my camera. :twisted:

Northwind

andrewjoseph wrote:

When you come off the bike you are not going to be worried about standover height, it will be the huge pointy rock or the rather solid looking tree.

Yeah, but when you bail on a climb or a technical bit,and go to put your feet down, but you're on uneven ground so the floor is further away than usuall, suddenly being marginal for standover height can be a bigger deal- a foot down maybe turns into a fall. I guarantee you I would have bailed today at glentress on my old medium carrera, (not just bigger but high top tube), but as I was on my small Scandal I got both feet down and just stopped, instead of going right over (in the middle of a jaggy rock patch) Sometimes it can matter.

Also, "When you are pedalling you are sitting on the saddle"? You never pedal out of the saddle?

andrewjoseph

Northwind wrote:

[
Yeah, but when you bail on a climb or a technical bit,and go to put your feet down, but you're on uneven ground so the floor is further away than usuall, suddenly being marginal for standover height can be a bigger deal- a foot down maybe turns into a fall.

Agreed, but this is not a frequent occurrence is it, it doesn't happen everytime you stop. The other way of stopping on uneven ground is to trackstand for a moment, unclip and jump off the upslope side of the bike.

Also, "When you are pedalling you are sitting on the saddle"? You never pedal out of the saddle?

very rarely, and neither does anyone else. 99% of the time we are pedaling sitting down, especially on technical climbs when weight is needed over the rear wheel.

you may be standing up frequently on singletrack but you don't pedal that much. my point was that pedaling whilst sitting means you are already at the at the lowest point you are going to be. if you are not sitting on the saddle then you are standing on the pedals and so even higher above the top tube.

Northwind

You're right, you don't stop like that often, only when you're screwing up and need to do something in a hurry. If you attempt a climb or a step and fail, you're not going to trackstand comfortably til you can unclip and dismount in full control. So, it doesn't happen every time you stop, only when you stop under the least control, without planning to stop. And that's exactly when standover is important- anyone can ride an oversized bike on the road or on a simple XC route, or on a more technical trail as long as it's going right, because the problem is just not there. But if you're going to tackle bigger trail features, sooner or later you're not going to make it up one.

So, it doesn't matter often, but when it matters it matters. I suppose it's like airbags in a car- your argument that you don't need the clearance often so it doesn't matter is like saying you don't crash often, so why have crash protection? The other 99.99% of the time it's just a waste. But the one time you crash you'll be glad it's there.

I agree with your basic point on the pedalling though, I was picking up too much on "When you're pedalling, you're seated", which I completely disagree with, but of course your point that when you're pedalling top tube clearance is irrelevant is correct whether you're standing for power or seated for efficiency.

supersonic

I quite often fall forward on some severe terrain or climbs, so 2 or 3 inch gap is most welcome!

Saddle rails - many people do use it to adjust weight distribution. Just look at the vast array of seat angles we have on the market. Some people prefer to be sat further behind the BB than others, simple as that, others further forward especially with longer travel forks and slacker HAs.

Northwind

I remember when I first started riding, it was practically the law that you get the knee/pedal position exactly "right". Now, there seems to be a lot of variety in that, suppose it comes with slacker geometry etc? Or maybe just a change in standard wisdom while I was away.

supersonic

I think it makes more sense on a roadbike or low travel XC bike - but you are very dynamic on most MTBs, shifting weight and position a lot.

andrewjoseph

Northwind wrote:

...

So, it doesn't matter often, but when it matters it matters. I suppose it's like airbags in a car- your argument that you don't need the clearance often so it doesn't matter is like saying you don't crash often, so why have crash protection? The other 99.99% of the time it's just a waste. But the one time you crash you'll be glad it's there.

....

I know where you are coming from, but my view is that riding a bike that is too small for 99% of the time is likely to cause more accidents.

most trail obstacles, rocks, ruts etc, that make you stop and lose control are well over the recommended 2" standover height, so you would contact the top tube even if you had 4" or 6" standover.

Usually if I lose control I go down fast, if i have the time to put my feet on the ground then the bike is usually nearly at a standstill anyway, so I can usually hold position long enough to unclip and jump to one side.

most falls happen so fast you can't control it, then usually propel you off the bike, not down onto it.

If you are comfortable on a bike that has the required standover and you feel confident, then that's great. All I'm saying is that standover is not the main consideration when buying, a comfortable riding position is.

andrewjoseph

supersonic wrote:

I think it makes more sense on a roadbike or low travel XC bike - but you are very dynamic on most MTBs, shifting weight and position a lot.

maybe it's because I'm older (48 now!), but my knees can't cope with an incorrect position for very long.

I'd rather tell people to 'be careful' now, than say ' I told you so' in 10 years time.

supersonic

Personally I do prefer a position on my XC bike similar to you as I find it gives the most efficient power delivery when seated. I also tend to ride with the pedal quite far back on my foot.

What is incorrect for you or I though may not be for someone else of course!

Many longer travel bikes seem to be getting steeper in the seat angle (ie OnOne) to set the rider further into the bike when seated to control the front end more.

Old non sus corrected frames were the worst - sit you too far back!

Northwind

andrewjoseph wrote:

I know where you are coming from, but my view is that riding a bike that is too small for 99% of the time is likely to cause more accidents.

Oh yeah, absolutely. I'm not advocating going small, I'm advocating going right it should be possible for almost anyone to find a frame that fits them properly in all ways.

supertwisted

Well, I've gone for the Rockhopper in the end (see my self-indulgent new bike thread for more).

Despite my reservations about standover, it is still the most comfortable bike I've tried so far. It's also an absolute bargain at the price.

Thanks for all your help everyone