Frame size preference

rubez

Anyone ride a smaller frame than is suggested in the buying guides?

I know that frame size differs manufacturer to manufacturer, but in general let's say.

I am 5'10" and am thinking about a 17" frame (as opposed to 20")

What say you?

jairaj

Yep if it feels good then go with it. I am roughly your height and find I am on the borderline between medium and large frames for a lot of brands. When demoing bikes, same frame in different sizes, the smaller one usually feels better to me.

oodboo

I'm about 5'10" and I usually go for a medium or around 17". Try it and get the size that feel comfortable. There's no hard and fast rule and as you know, sizes and geometry vary between manufacturers. I always thought the top tube length is the more important measurement even though bikes are always sized by the seat tube length.

pesky_jones

Yeah I'm 6"2 and ride a 16". It is a aggresive hardtail though and I like to chuck it around so the smaller size helps

rubez

Excellent, looks like 17" is definitely the way to go.

Tried a 20" and whilst is was perfectly ridable, it felt a little on the larger side. Smaller size for better chuckability is what I had in mind.

Thewaylander

Pesky Jones wrote:

Yeah I'm 6"2 and ride a 16". It is a aggresive hardtail though and I like to chuck it around so the smaller size helps

Similar on a 17" medium mondy at about the same height, this partly due to long legs shorter upper body and arms. this is why testing is important!

rubez

Hmm... would a 14" be too small? Given you two are much taller and ride a 17"?

14" sounds a bit... midgety.

Also, how do you measure a bike's frame? Is it top of seat post down to bottom of frame where the crank is?

pesky_jones

Thewaylander wrote:

Pesky Jones wrote:

Yeah I'm 6"2 and ride a 16". It is a aggresive hardtail though and I like to chuck it around so the smaller size helps

Similar on a 17" medium mondy at about the same height, this partly due to long legs shorter upper body and arms. this is why testing is important!

Ha I've got long legs and shorter upper body and arms also

supersonic

Two 17 inch frames can be massively different though! Depends how are measured, and we have other factors that are more important such as reach.

Thewaylander

supersonic wrote:

Two 17 inch frames can be massively different though! Depends how are measured, and we have other factors that are more important such as reach.

You haven't got a good reach round... ooops wrong section.

But this is totally true, some makes an 18" would feel better for me and so on, really important to sit on it for a feel!

lancew

I ride a 56cm frame on my road bike and love the size so that I have a good riding position however my MTB is a 18" frame. I am 6' tall, so this is a little small but as I currently use it with slicks for a short ride through traffic to the station I find the smaller size makes it an easier ride.

Its about to have a pair of Nobby nic's put on it and be taken back to the forest for some single track so I'm looking forward to dropping the seat a bit and riding it as an aggressive hardtail as some of the guys above agree.

rockmonkeysc

I prefer a larger frame rather than a smaller one.
Being cramped up with a short top tube restricts movement and puts weight too far back.
20" sounds a bit big for a 5'10" rider.

Chunkers1980

You can't change the size of frame you have.

Thewaylander

Chunkers1980 wrote:

You can't change the size of frame you have.

Hack saw some spare tubes... bit of duck tape no problems

lawman

I think it's pretty insane that folks around the 5ft10/5ft11 mark are riding large or even xl frames. I'm 6ft1 and ride a 17" bike and it is a little small for me, but the fact I recently rode a few XL bikes and they fitted reasonably well was certainly an eye-brow raiser. I think Mtb's are still stuck in a world of geometry taken from road bikes, with seat tubes that are too long and top tubes that are too short. Sure we've made great strides in terms of head/seat angles, bb heights and so on, but it would be much nicer if manufacturers sorted their sizing out. I look at and try many bikes and for the large part I'm left thinking they'd be better if they changed the sizing a little, so you'd get the top tube of the next size up bike but the seat tube of what you'd normally ride. You can easily fit a longer seatpost but you can't change your frame, at least doing it that way would open up the possibilities for people in between sizes like myself and many others. Kona have gone in the right direction with the new line of Process bikes, we just need more to follow. Longer top tubes, shorter seat tubes and shorter stems please!

Thewaylander

Like mondy Fwd geometry? which was around before the kona.

supersonic

My frames measure 16 - 20.5 inches. All fit.

Chunkers1980

Is that all measured in the same way rather than what's written on them?

Herdwick29.

I'm 6'2 and ride a 19 inch frame and it used to feel small due to the fact that I have long legs and couldn't fit the saddle properly in relation to the bars, I had the saddle to high and bent to much to reach the bars and that causes shoulder and wrists pain, after fiddling with different riser bars, now is a pleasure to ride. Next time I will test ride and then buy. If you ride it and feels comfy, buy it, don't bother what size is written on the seat tube.

Herdwick29.

Oh, and from my experience a 17'' HT frame won't feel the same as a 17'' FS frame, the rider positioning on the frame is different . But someone with more knowledge may give more info on this.

Herdwick29.

Lawman, I agree with you on the seat tube/top tube sizes. fitted a shorter stem recently on my asx4900 to match with wider bars and felt awkward, and cramped, while steering, my knees would hit the bars so I had to keep my body back and legs quite apart when descending to avoid contact. A slightly longer top tube would fix this.

Chunkers1980

So would a slightly longer stem, or tilting bars forward.

Frames find a happy medium so you can adjust your contact points as everyone is different.

Like we always say - you need to sit on it before you part with your cash.

rockmonkeysc

I'm only 6'1" but need at least a 19" seat tube to get enough saddle height with a 400mm post. I also like the top tube to be between 610mm and 630mm.
At the moment I have an XL Nukeproof Mega TR but tge geometry is closer to most large frames. Next to a mates XL Trek Fuel my Mega looks tiny, the top tube is quite a bit shorter.

lawman

Thewaylander wrote:

Like mondy Fwd geometry? which was around before the kona.

Aye but I think the FWD geometry takes it to the extremes and leads to a little compromise, from what I've read bar height being one. A 30-50mm stem would be more practical I think, but props to Mondraker for having the guts to think outside the box. Fit is very personal, but how many bikes nowadays come with "long" stems and short top tubes? Quite a lot.

Yeti have quite a good geometry ideology, their recent bikes like the SB66 have had nice long top tubes, the medium SB66 nearly as long as an XL Mojo HD or Trek Remedy!

supersonic

We need different geometries for different people. One manufacturers ideal may be way off for certain groups of people. It is what suits. The long top tube/short stem has been around since the 90s, it is just that we are seeing a bit more of it now, but still not all like it.

My '18' inch Zaskar Carbon frame has a foot of seatpost sticking out. The frame could be 30", it would still fit, I'd ride the same.

kajjal

I am 6ft7 and on the top limit of my old Orange MTB (21") . My Specialized Carve is 23" and fits me fine. Both are good to ride so it is just personal preference as long as the bike is not far too small or too big.