Sizing issue...shorter seatpost to fix it?
Iain C
Posts: 464
Right, the missus' new bike has arrived...it's a Trance X5, and it's replacing her WSD Rockhopper HT. The Trance is a 16" (S) and the Rockhopper is a 15.5". Unfortunatly, as the bike came from an internet retailer on the C2W scheme, there was no option to try it first. She's just over 5'3".
Out the box, the Trance looked huge, but then again it would as it's a much beefier bike than her old round tubed Rockhopper, and a quick run round with the tape measure confirmed that the main cockpit measurments are almost identical, the only difference being reach (easily adjusted with a 60mm stem) and height of the bars is about 30mm higher (which are on quite a few spacers, and of course will be higher anyway due to increased fork travel). Crucially, the standover height (obviously with the suss on full extension) is actually the same, due to the swoopy top tube profile of the Trance. And interestingly, although Giant have dropped the XS from the 2010 range (this is an 09 bike) there's actually very little difference geometry wise between S and XS, and if she went for a womens version (Cypher) the frame actually seems bigger for any given size than the mens (women have longer legs and all that). She can't get that bike on the C2W scheme.
The one issue is the seatpost. The seatpost the Trance has come with is big, well over 350mm. As the main rocker pivot pierces the seat tube, there's not the scope to drop the post very far, and she can't get it as low as she'd like for downhill. Looking at the manual, the Trance only needs 80mm of instertion at full height, so the obvious thing to do is to work out the measurments and chop the excess off the bottom of the post. Thsi will give lots more than the current 45mm of adjustement between fully down and min insertion.
Even if she could get an XS (which she can't) the seatpost would still presumably be an issue...the Maestro rear triangle is one piece, which therefore must dictate that the rocker link and pivot are going to be in the same place working from the ground up, so although you may get slightly more standover height with an XS (however this is not the issue), saddle fully down is still going to be the same, and the only fix is a shorter seatpost.
As everything else seems fine or easily fixed fit wise, does a shorter seatpost seem like the logical answer? Have any other slightly smaller riders come across this issues on a FS bike? Is this a case of Giant being lazy with the spec? (Fully extended the post is ludicrously high, I'm just shy of 6' and could not ride it like that!)
Out the box, the Trance looked huge, but then again it would as it's a much beefier bike than her old round tubed Rockhopper, and a quick run round with the tape measure confirmed that the main cockpit measurments are almost identical, the only difference being reach (easily adjusted with a 60mm stem) and height of the bars is about 30mm higher (which are on quite a few spacers, and of course will be higher anyway due to increased fork travel). Crucially, the standover height (obviously with the suss on full extension) is actually the same, due to the swoopy top tube profile of the Trance. And interestingly, although Giant have dropped the XS from the 2010 range (this is an 09 bike) there's actually very little difference geometry wise between S and XS, and if she went for a womens version (Cypher) the frame actually seems bigger for any given size than the mens (women have longer legs and all that). She can't get that bike on the C2W scheme.
The one issue is the seatpost. The seatpost the Trance has come with is big, well over 350mm. As the main rocker pivot pierces the seat tube, there's not the scope to drop the post very far, and she can't get it as low as she'd like for downhill. Looking at the manual, the Trance only needs 80mm of instertion at full height, so the obvious thing to do is to work out the measurments and chop the excess off the bottom of the post. Thsi will give lots more than the current 45mm of adjustement between fully down and min insertion.
Even if she could get an XS (which she can't) the seatpost would still presumably be an issue...the Maestro rear triangle is one piece, which therefore must dictate that the rocker link and pivot are going to be in the same place working from the ground up, so although you may get slightly more standover height with an XS (however this is not the issue), saddle fully down is still going to be the same, and the only fix is a shorter seatpost.
As everything else seems fine or easily fixed fit wise, does a shorter seatpost seem like the logical answer? Have any other slightly smaller riders come across this issues on a FS bike? Is this a case of Giant being lazy with the spec? (Fully extended the post is ludicrously high, I'm just shy of 6' and could not ride it like that!)
0
Comments
-
The trouble with longer travel bikes (5"+) if you're a smaller rider is there's a limit to how small the frame can go - the height of the bottom of the head tube is set by the fork and they have to work from there. I found the same problem to some degree with 5" full sussers - anything with a straight top tube left me with very little standover, even though the cockpit was otherwise a perfect fit.0
-
Err hacksaw."Do not follow where the path may lead, Go instead where there is no path, and Leave a Trail."
Parktools :?:SheldonBrown0 -
About 10 years ago bikes went from being big with short seat posts to small with long ones. This trend didn't factor in pierced seat tubes and so you are now finding out what the limitations of this fashion are! Get your hacksaw out and get busy. Definitely also swap the stem out too. Remember you can roll the bars forward or backwards to compensate for a few mm of change too.A Flock of Birds
+ some other bikes.0 -
My 16" Fury is similar. But the post drops enough to give me room to get behind the seat so I'm happy with it. If I had any issue, I'd just chop some off.
And yeah, because of the 140mm travel fork, it's still huge up front. Standover height is completely different at one end of the top tube than it is the other!0 -
OK great, that's what I was thinking, it just seemed a bit drastic, that's all.
I'll warm up the hacksaw then!0
