Help with final decision on stem+frame size XC MTB

Ono

Hi there!
I started a threat a couple of weeks ago about frame sizes but since things have moved on I decided to start a fresh one with a more concrete question.
I am a relatively novice rider but would like to get back in shape and progress from there. I will be doing mainly XC riding.
I have narrowed down my search for a bike to one model and two sizes. The bike is the TREK 6300. I have tried both the 18.5'' and the 19.5'' in two different shops (and bviously each shop pushes towards their bike).
The guys were I tried the 19.5'' were very helpfull and fitted the bike to my height and arm reach (I am 6' tall and 33.5'' inseam). Here are the two alternatives:

- 18.5'' with a 105mm stem (normal saddle position)
- 19.5'' with a 90mm stem (slightly forward saddle position).

Both options feel good at the moment and I could go easily with one or another. Here is the geometry charts of the bike:

http://www.evanscycles.com/product_docu ... y-data.pdf

The 19.5'' has a slighly longer wheelbase and the effective tt reach is more or less similar now with the modificacions.
How would the stem differences work given that I am planning to do slightly longer rides at this particular stage?
Cheers!

The Rookie

Take the smaller frame, allows you to move the bike around underneath you better when the trail gets a bit rougher or twisty.

Ono

Thanks for the comment! What they told me in one of the stores is that the 19.5'' would be more comfortable in longer rides. Does that make sense? Also, would you even go for the smaller frame with a longer stem? How would that difference affect the steering and agility of the bike?

rockmonkeysc

The Beginner wrote:

Take the smaller frame, allows you to move the bike around underneath you better when the trail gets a bit rougher or twisty.

Thats bollocks. A small frame will put your weight too far back, be rubbish for climbing and when you are trying to ride fast down twisty trails it will be awkward because you are hanging too far off the back in an unnatural position. The right size bike will feel much more neutral and be easier to ride fast. A 105mm stem is very long and won't steer nicely at all.
Also with the larger frame you can use a shorter stem which will give better steering.
I'm about the same size as you and I wouldn't even consider the 18.5" frame, I would go for the 19.5". The larger frame also has the advantage of a longer wheelbase which will be more stable.

supersonic

If you want more stability. I'd ask for a test ride, that is the best way of finding out what is right.

625mm top tube is pretty long. For me at 6ft and a 35 inch inside leg, I'd even consider the 17.5.

The Rookie

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Thats ****. A small frame will put your weight too far back, be rubbish for climbing and when you are trying to ride fast down twisty trails it will be awkward because you are hanging too far off the back in an unnatural position. .

I guess you missed the point about saddle in normal position (so hardly hanging off the back) for XC most stems are still around 80-100mm, so 105mm is hardly long.....we're not talking a too small frame here, but someone who falls between 2 sizes.

Ono

Guys, thank you very much for your opinions! I am learning very much from all this. I could never imagine that it would be that hard finding a bike that is right for me but I am also enjoying the process very much!
When going for that second test ride on both bikes (and having in mind that they are in different shops so I won't be able to swap between them straightaway), what should I be looking at? What can I do in those 20-30 mins in order to finally decide which one would be best?
And also, the fact that I am planning to do longer off-road distances (3-4 hours), how would it affect my choice of sizes?

cooldad

3 or 4 hours is a normal ride, so for me anyway, it wouldn't.

Ono

sorry, I meant 3-4 hours to begin with but then planning to increase it to cover more distance and spend the weekend out...
what about the test rides? What is the best thing to do in such a reduced timeframe to realise which one would be best?

The Rookie

You just need to get the best feel for how comfy it is, so try not to fidgit or try and adjust to it....all to easy to adjust to something for 20 mins which you can't for 3 hours!

rockmonkeysc

Giant do five day test rides which will give you a chance for a proper test ride. Some shops will let you test ride bikes for a full day.

The Rookie

My local Trek store (Trek UK, not independant) do full day demo rides as well.

Ono

I have been checking but couldn't find a TREK store in London (the website refers me to independent retailers, plus this is a 2012 model).

I got some final measurements and I am planning to go and get the bike tomorrow.

18.5'' vs 19.5''

(in centimeters:)
71.2 vs 71.5 (Same cockpit length)
105 vs 90 stem length
108.2 vs 110 wheelbase
77.1 vs 78.7 stand over (I'm 33.5' so that is 85cm inseam)

Control vs comfort?
Any final thoughts?

rockmonkeysc

Both have plenty of standover. That 90mm stem and longer wheelbase are going to make the bike handle better plus you still have the option of fitting a longer or shorter stem but with the 105mm stem thats about as long as you would want to go with it.

The Rookie

I can see RM's logic, but disagree, I would go with the 18.5" for the reasons previously stated.

Not sure a longer wheelbase = handles better, more stable, yes, but handles better, no.

Ono

Hi guys!
I finally went for the Scott Scale 50 for £700. It was only £50 more than the Trek. I was also considering the Whyte 901 that felt great and is a more Trail oriented bike but is was £1200 more. But for the price difference I could get a new fork at some point or even safe for a new bike in the future.
I am going to start fiddling around with the Scott, starting with shortening the stem a bit (currently: 100mm).
I went for a ride yesterday and it felt really nice to be back on the tracks!
Thanks for all your help!