Frame size dilemma - I'm half chimp!
MrNJP
Posts: 8
This is my first post so be gentle with me people.
A little bit about me: I’m 58 and have been riding bikes most of my life and a mountain bike for the last 14 years but only for transport or leisure. Nowadays I just ride gravel tracks with occasional road and proper off-road, but never serious or competitive use.
My old bike was a decent budget hardtail MTB 22”, 26er but the frame has broken at a rear dropout and is not viable for repair.
Not having much spare cash, I scoured the web for the best value new 29er I could find and settled on a respected company’s own brand. It has a low spec for the equipment but the frame is the same as their top model and is eminently upgradable. I’m 6’2”, normal weight but I have relatively short legs at 34” and an ape index of +3! (6’5” span). I used to be closer to 6’3” but chronic lower disc degeneration has reduced my height and given me a back problem. I have to have a straight back and can’t take being hunched over anything for long periods.
On my old bike, I always felt that I needed more reach even though it has a long stem (130mm) and I put the saddle right back. So when I came to size myself for the new bike, even though I have a foot in the 20” and the 22” bracket, I thought it a no-brainer to go for the 22”. There was no opportunity to see the bike before I ordered it but looking at similar ones in stores, confirmed that conclusion. When the bike arrived, I was delighted with how it fits me when riding, but soon noticed that when I sit astride the top tube, although I can get both feet easily flat on the floor, it’s pretty snug. I checked the dimensions of the seat tube in the traditional way and it turns out to be more like a 23.5” frame! To be fair, this is stated in the metric-only specs but they still call it a 22”.
My thoughts are: I could mess around swapping it for the 20” (closer to a 21”) but then I would have a shorter wheelbase and less reach, which I know would be compensated by having the saddle higher, but all things considered, I’m tempted to stick with it. There’s a lot of debate about standover height but I’m reaching the conclusion that this is rooted in an old fashioned ‘reckoner’ for getting you in the right ball park frame size and the dire warnings about injury are not based on much fact. I’ve never had to dismount over the top tube with both feet and even if I was forced to, I doubt it would be with straight legs and any amount of gap wouldn’t help me. When I rest on the bike, I always have one foot on a pedal.
Would be interested in some views.
A little bit about me: I’m 58 and have been riding bikes most of my life and a mountain bike for the last 14 years but only for transport or leisure. Nowadays I just ride gravel tracks with occasional road and proper off-road, but never serious or competitive use.
My old bike was a decent budget hardtail MTB 22”, 26er but the frame has broken at a rear dropout and is not viable for repair.
Not having much spare cash, I scoured the web for the best value new 29er I could find and settled on a respected company’s own brand. It has a low spec for the equipment but the frame is the same as their top model and is eminently upgradable. I’m 6’2”, normal weight but I have relatively short legs at 34” and an ape index of +3! (6’5” span). I used to be closer to 6’3” but chronic lower disc degeneration has reduced my height and given me a back problem. I have to have a straight back and can’t take being hunched over anything for long periods.
On my old bike, I always felt that I needed more reach even though it has a long stem (130mm) and I put the saddle right back. So when I came to size myself for the new bike, even though I have a foot in the 20” and the 22” bracket, I thought it a no-brainer to go for the 22”. There was no opportunity to see the bike before I ordered it but looking at similar ones in stores, confirmed that conclusion. When the bike arrived, I was delighted with how it fits me when riding, but soon noticed that when I sit astride the top tube, although I can get both feet easily flat on the floor, it’s pretty snug. I checked the dimensions of the seat tube in the traditional way and it turns out to be more like a 23.5” frame! To be fair, this is stated in the metric-only specs but they still call it a 22”.
My thoughts are: I could mess around swapping it for the 20” (closer to a 21”) but then I would have a shorter wheelbase and less reach, which I know would be compensated by having the saddle higher, but all things considered, I’m tempted to stick with it. There’s a lot of debate about standover height but I’m reaching the conclusion that this is rooted in an old fashioned ‘reckoner’ for getting you in the right ball park frame size and the dire warnings about injury are not based on much fact. I’ve never had to dismount over the top tube with both feet and even if I was forced to, I doubt it would be with straight legs and any amount of gap wouldn’t help me. When I rest on the bike, I always have one foot on a pedal.
Would be interested in some views.
0
Comments
-
If it fits and feel good, forget standover height. It's really not important.
Especially at 58, when your nuts are just useless dangly things.
And welcome to the really old and slightly decrepit BR club.
The Rookie will be along shortly to tell you he's a relative youngster. But he's a bit of a knob so don't take it seriously.I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
Without knowing what this bike is I couldn't pass comment.Now where's that "Get Out of Crash Free Card"0
-
What the bike is, is not important, this is:MrNJP wrote:...When the bike arrived, I was delighted with how it fits me when riding,...I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
cooldad wrote:What the bike is, is not important, this is:MrNJP wrote:...When the bike arrived, I was delighted with how it fits me when riding,...
As he was asking about the frame size, and fit for different makes is different, I thought it was pertinent.Now where's that "Get Out of Crash Free Card"0 -
Thanks for the input fellas. If it helps, here's the bike.
http://www.wiggle.co.uk/verenti-mesh-acera-2016/0 -
Looks like you picked the right frame size for you, plus you say it fits. As for for the undercarriage clearance, the last time I had an incident on a crossbar was back in 1959, so it doesn't happen in the real world often.Now where's that "Get Out of Crash Free Card"0
-
Looks about right from the tables.
The smaller frame would have close on a 6 inch shorter reach, and a slightly lower front end, which wouldn't help if it feels right.
As I said, if standover is the main concern, it's the least important measurement.I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
Thanks both for your responses. All very reassuring.
Cooldad, just for my education, how did you work out the nearly 6" shorter reach? I didn't realise it would be that much.0 -
Reach usually changes about 20-25mm per frame size, that's if you are using the generally accepted frame manufacturers method.
You could use the nose of the saddle to centre of bars just to set up each bike and call it reach, that's how I've always called it.Now where's that "Get Out of Crash Free Card"0 -
MrNJP wrote:Thanks both for your responses. All very reassuring.
Cooldad, just for my education, how did you work out the nearly 6" shorter reach? I didn't realise it would be that much.
Ignore me, I had a bit of brainfade reading the specs.
Possibly senility.I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
No worries, I know the feeling. I just wanted to make sure!
Thanks again.0
