|For those of you who like to gloat. The Trek looks too big.||Kristin|
Jul 1, 2003 10:02 AM
|I need to buy 2 more tools before I can take it for a spin, but my guess is that it will be too big--as some of you predicted. But I'm really puzzled. I truly do not understand geometry. If this bike has the same TT and ST lengths as the Trek 800 hybrid, how can it have 2 inches more reach?
So what sized MTB would you recommend for a 5'7" girl with a 32" inseam w/short torso who wants to be in a fairly upright position?
|perhaps it has 2" more reach b/c diff seat & head tube angles?||jtferraro|
Jul 1, 2003 10:49 AM
|Not sure what size MTB, maybe a 15"?
|I was thinking from you previous post.......||abicirider|
Jul 1, 2003 11:10 AM
|Boy that camo bike is going to be too big but didn't want to say anything the biggest MTB bike should be 16 center -Top that is the bigest more like 15" Iam 5'5" and ride a 14" it fits me just right. If you are interested maybe we can work something out I have a 14" GT outpost frameset (hardtail)coming in the next day or so I just bought it because I got a giveaway deal on it it is just the frame no fork parts etc I can part with it. IF you are interested you can email me at firstname.lastname@example.org I can email you a picture of the frame.
Be Safe Out On The Roads!!!!!
|Oh, update on the FedEx shipping disaster||Kristin|
Jul 1, 2003 11:57 AM
|I took about 15 pictures of the damage to the box before opening it. Superstition and Murphy being accurate, I waisted enough film to ensure that I would find no damage to the bike. Sure enough, the wheels are perfectly in true and the rest of the bike was just fine. As a matter of fact, the bike was packed very professionally--except for the unprotected heels.|
|Compact vs traditional geometry?||dzrider|
Jul 1, 2003 12:19 PM
|A sloping top tube makes the seat tube effectively longer.
My guess on the mtb size would be 16" or 17" and a short stem. My boys are 5'10" and 5'11" and ride 19" frames comfortably, but, being 13 and 15 they are insensitive to pain unless it's related to work and unconcerned about questions of fit.
|re: For those of you who like to gloat. The Trek looks too big.||peter1|
Jul 1, 2003 7:41 PM
|Think you and my wife are the same size, with long arms and short torso. She rides a 17" Specialized hardtail with a 100 mm stem swapped in place of the origina 120 or 130 mm, and riser bars. I think she'd even like a shorter stem, but that would screw up the handling too much, I think.
Unfortunately, lower end mtbs have not been sized well for women. Long top tubes and proportionally smaller torsos don't go well together...
|shouldn't be that tough....||C-40|
Jul 2, 2003 5:16 AM
|From your stated diemsnions, you should have no trouble getting the proper size frame. You torso is not as short as mine. I'm 5'-6.5" tall in bare feet with an 83cm inseam. You inseam is just over 81cm.
If you measured your inseam to firm crotch conact in bare feet, you would ride a frame that is 1-2cm smaller than I do.
I ride frames that are 53-55cm c-t or 51-53cm c-c. Just about any brand other than the LOOK models with 72.5 degree seat tubes will fit me with a 100 or 110mm stem.
If I bought a Trek road bike, I would ride a 56cm (they are not measured in the normal manner). I might need a stem as short as a 90mm, due to the long TT.
I would expect that you should ride a 54cm Trek road frame. You might need a flipped stem to get enough bar height, but that's no problem. What Trek did you get?
|Oops, I was talking about a MTB||Kristin|
Jul 2, 2003 9:16 AM
|I know, wrong website. I bought a used Trek900, which would be about 1 step lower than a Trek 8000 today.|
|Oh, and its a 19" frame. nm||Kristin|
Jul 2, 2003 9:17 AM
|yep, too big...||C-40|
Jul 2, 2003 9:45 AM
|I'd would a 17-18", you should have a 16-17.|| |