Resend my activation email : Register : Log in 
BCF: Bike Chat Forums


29er for shorties?

Reply to topic
Bike Chat Forums Index -> The Cycling Forum
View previous topic : View next topic  
Author Message

pinkyfloyd
Super Spammer



Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 01:58 - 19 Jun 2014    Post subject: 29er for shorties? Reply with quote

I'm in a bit of a dilemma, I've been looking at cheap pushbikes to pottle around Portsmouth on with the wife in the vain attempt to get fit. My requirements are basic, very basic, Minimum budget, we are talking cheap as chips here as it will only be used to fart around town. Hard tail proffered with front suspension.

Now. I have seen one I really like the look of in my budget but its a 29 inch wheeled bike. I'm just shy of 5'6 with a 30 inch inseam. This bike is a 17 inch frame. On a normal 26 inch bike I can get away with a maximum 19 inch frame. According to their size guide Halfrauds claim I can get away with a 17 inch frame.


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/be1ly/size_zpsdb23ae63.jpg

See.

Now, this bike is on budget (under if truth be told) I like the look, has plenty of gears, front suspension.

Will my height, or lack there of, make me look even more silly than I do on a pushbike, or more importantly, will it be too big for me realistically. A test ride is out of the question because its online. Although at a push I could possibly get to the local Halfrauds and sit on a few.

Or should I stick with a 26?

Any help/advice would be appreciated.
____________________
illuminateTHEmind wrote: I am just more evolved than most of you guys... this allows me to pick of things quickly which would have normally taken the common man years to master
Hockeystorm65:.well there are childish arguments...there are very childish arguments.....there are really stupid childish arguments and now there are......Pinkfloyd arguments!
Teflon-Mike:I think I agree with just about all Pinky has said.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

sickpup
Old Timer



Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 05:51 - 19 Jun 2014    Post subject: Reply with quote

17" frame is quite likely to big for you in either 26 or 29 wheel size. You should be looking at a 15" in either.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

stinkwheel
Bovine Proctologist



Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 09:33 - 19 Jun 2014    Post subject: Reply with quote

The frame size determines the distances between the saddle, handlebars and pedals.

The wheel size has little relevance to this because the part of the frame that deals with the rear wheel is behind the rider and the forks deal with the front.

In any case, the only way you'll know for definate what fits is to sit on it because there is practically no standardisation on frame sizing, even within different years of the same make. I find, especially with mountain bikes, the frame size is of much less importance than it used to be. Seatposts can be very high and stems come in a huge variety of lengths and angles meaning you just need to be close enough. The only really insurmountable problem would be if the saddle was hard against the frame and you still couldn't reach the pedals.

Also remember, the rim diameter on a 29"er is exactly the same as on a 700c road bike.

If you're concerned about how you'll look on it, don't be. I reckon the "big wheel" lok of 29"ers is part of the attraction.

All of that said. If you are aiming to pootle round Portsmouth, why are you looking at mountain bikes? They are for riding offroad.
____________________
“Rule one: Always stick around for one more drink. That's when things happen. That's when you find out everything you want to know.”
I did the 2010 Round Britain Rally on my 350 Bullet. 89 landmarks, 3 months, 9,500 miles.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

pinkyfloyd
Super Spammer



Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 09:40 - 19 Jun 2014    Post subject: Reply with quote

stinkwheel wrote:

All of that said. If you are aiming to pootle round Portsmouth, why are you looking at mountain bikes? They are for riding offroad.


Thanks for the info. I'm about to head to Halfrauds to sit on a few to get a rough size. That'll give me an estimate to get something else where.

The principal reason for the mountain bike is because its budget and the hybred or even road bikes tend to be more expensive, and the front suspension is something I am interested in to save my poor delicate wrists. Laughing
____________________
illuminateTHEmind wrote: I am just more evolved than most of you guys... this allows me to pick of things quickly which would have normally taken the common man years to master
Hockeystorm65:.well there are childish arguments...there are very childish arguments.....there are really stupid childish arguments and now there are......Pinkfloyd arguments!
Teflon-Mike:I think I agree with just about all Pinky has said.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

stinkwheel
Bovine Proctologist



Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 11:16 - 19 Jun 2014    Post subject: Reply with quote

Try searching for urban bikes which is another term for a hybrid. They do those with less extreme suspension systems, just enough to put a little flex in rather than full-on bouncy.

If you're getting wrist pain, it's more likely that your handlebars are the wrong shape and/or in the wrong position though.

The thing is, a hybrid/road/urban bike will have road wheels, tyres and gearing set up for riding on the road. I can't stress enough how much easier this makes them to ride.

If you get a mountain bike as an attempt to get fit by riding to the shops etc, you'll find it hard going, will resent it and it'll land up sitting in the back of the garage. Seen it happen many times.

If you get a road bike, you'll find it's actually quicker and easier to pop out on local journeys on than to get the car/motorbike out and park it.
____________________
“Rule one: Always stick around for one more drink. That's when things happen. That's when you find out everything you want to know.”
I did the 2010 Round Britain Rally on my 350 Bullet. 89 landmarks, 3 months, 9,500 miles.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

KLR600
World Chat Champion



Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Karma :

PostPosted: 14:05 - 19 Jun 2014    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can't really help any more than Sickpup and Stinkwheel have on the frame sizing question but be wary of cheap bikes with cheap suspension. It's likely to be pretty ineffective and liable to seize if it sees rain meaning your suspension fork turns into a very heavy rigid fork. If it's either the Indi or the Falcon on the website then I'd wager that the forks will be useless after a few weeks of riding. I doubt the Whistle will have a much better fork even if it does have lockout. I'd image you'd be keeping the forks mostly locked out on the road anyway.
____________________
Now: '00 Kawasaki ZRX1100R - Past: '84 Yamaha DT125, '89 Kawasaki KLR600, '97 Yamaha XJ600N
<My Bikepics Page> <My Yootoobes> <My Websites> <My Photos>
<Take Cool Photos!>
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Paris2
Nearly there...



Joined: 10 Apr 2011
Karma :

PostPosted: 22:46 - 19 Jun 2014    Post subject: Reply with quote

stinkwheel wrote:
The thing is, a hybrid/road/urban bike will have road wheels, tyres and gearing set up for riding on the road. I can't stress enough how much easier this makes them to ride.


This, 100%.

stinkwheel wrote:
If you get a mountain bike as an attempt to get fit by riding to the shops etc, you'll find it hard going, will resent it and it'll land up sitting in the back of the garage. Seen it happen many times


I find this gives a better workout though, at least for me anyway. But to be fair I do most of my riding off road so a mountain bike setup is more suited in general.
____________________
Current Ride: Daytona 600
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

pinkyfloyd
Super Spammer



Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 00:47 - 20 Jun 2014    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks guys. For all the use it will get I managed to track down a 16 inch frame with 26 inch wheels for £120. No frills, cheap and will do the job.

It'll be for riding around Portsmouth with the missus, which is relatively flat.

Thumbs Up
____________________
illuminateTHEmind wrote: I am just more evolved than most of you guys... this allows me to pick of things quickly which would have normally taken the common man years to master
Hockeystorm65:.well there are childish arguments...there are very childish arguments.....there are really stupid childish arguments and now there are......Pinkfloyd arguments!
Teflon-Mike:I think I agree with just about all Pinky has said.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

Stevie GooGs
World Chat Champion



Joined: 28 Oct 2005
Karma :

PostPosted: 09:52 - 20 Jun 2014    Post subject: Reply with quote

I bought a 29er for the purposes of cycling my son to school but for taking him into forest trails. The wide nobbly tyres drag like feck on the road but it makes you work harder which is good for me as im looking for more exercise but my school run is only a couple of miles. If you are planning 90% on the road take the advice above dont bother with a mountain bike, get a hybrid or road bike.
____________________
Current: 2019 Yamaha T7 -> 2015 KTM Superduke R | 2000 Yamaha R1 Past -> 2009 KTM 990 SM -> 2005 kawasaki ZX10r -> 2000 Honda CBR 600 FY -> 2002 Honda XLV 125 Varadero
Bike Pics! -> My Photography Website
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

drbaig
Crazy Courier



Joined: 24 May 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 15:21 - 20 Jun 2014    Post subject: Reply with quote

Geometry is also important. Some road bikes have aggressive geometry which is a killer for neck and back.

If most of the riding is done on the road then a hybrid with carbon forks will be gentle enough on the wrists and a big padded saddle would be good enough for the bum.

As long as you can stand over the top tube without your balls touching it. That is the right size. Reach, setback, crank length etc. can all be adjusted.

Look for something with sloping top tube, carbon forks. 28c tyres at 80-90 psi should be fast enough and also comfortable enough.
____________________
yzf 600r Very Happy
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

stinkwheel
Bovine Proctologist



Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 15:36 - 20 Jun 2014    Post subject: Reply with quote

drbaig wrote:

If most of the riding is done on the road then a hybrid with carbon forks will be gentle enough on the wrists and a big padded saddle would be good enough for the bum.


Why carbon? Surely you'll get more "give" from steel? It's why my rigid MTB has chro-mo forks rather than carbon.

I would caution against excessively padded saddles. The padding should be on the shorts, not the saddle. Padded saddles seem like a good idea until about mile 10, then they start to rub.
____________________
“Rule one: Always stick around for one more drink. That's when things happen. That's when you find out everything you want to know.”
I did the 2010 Round Britain Rally on my 350 Bullet. 89 landmarks, 3 months, 9,500 miles.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

drbaig
Crazy Courier



Joined: 24 May 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:27 - 20 Jun 2014    Post subject: Reply with quote

stinkwheel wrote:
drbaig wrote:

If most of the riding is done on the road then a hybrid with carbon forks will be gentle enough on the wrists and a big padded saddle would be good enough for the bum.


Why carbon? Surely you'll get more "give" from steel? It's why my rigid MTB has chro-mo forks rather than carbon.

I would caution against excessively padded saddles. The padding should be on the shorts, not the saddle. Padded saddles seem like a good idea until about mile 10, then they start to rub.


I ride a full steel, alu frame/carbon forks and a full carbon. I prefer full carbon (no road buzz at all). Steel is better than alu, in terms of comfort but it is also not very stiff. Awful power transfer on steel.

I recommended carbon forks because most bikes are alu these days, the carbon forks do provide more comfort and weight savings.

Comparing steel to carbon is comparing apples to oranges. Everyone has their own preference.

As far as saddles are concerned, the padding makes very little difference after your bottom gets used to cycling. The discomfort is only at the beginning. But some people do prefer more padding. Depends on how big your bottom is.

All a matter of opinion, everyone has their favourites.
____________________
yzf 600r Very Happy
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

sickpup
Old Timer



Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:25 - 26 Jun 2014    Post subject: Reply with quote

stinkwheel wrote:
The wheel size has little relevance to this because the part of the frame that deals with the rear wheel is behind the rider and the forks deal with the front.


This may have been correct once and still is for non-suspended bikes but with the latest bikes and long travel suspension correct sizing has become extremely important.
My 29er with 4inch travel front forks has the top of the head tube around 12 inches higher than the one on my 18" Trek 8000 so giving even with a hugely slopping top tube considerably less standover height.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

stinkwheel
Bovine Proctologist



Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 02:11 - 01 Jul 2014    Post subject: Reply with quote

sickpup wrote:

This may have been correct once and still is for non-suspended bikes but with the latest bikes and long travel suspension correct sizing has become extremely important.
My 29er with 4inch travel front forks has the top of the head tube around 12 inches higher than the one on my 18" Trek 8000 so giving even with a hugely slopping top tube considerably less standover height.


I think you misunderstand. OP is concerned that he will not fit on a 29"er as compared to a 26"er because he is short. Unless things have radically changed, the quoted frame size is still (arguably and inconsistantly) the distance between the crank and the top of the seat-tube. Wheel size doesn't alter this, nor does the presence or absence of suspension.

All other things being equal, a 26"er with an 18" frame will have the same riding position as a 29"er with an 18" frame. Standover height is (to my mind) an utter irrelevance and is most certainly not the same thing as the riding position. The two most important distances are the distance between the saddle and the crank and the saddle and the handlebars with the angle between the saddle and the crank coming in a significant third. All three are adjustable. You do not pedal with your feet on the ground. In fact, most people are clipped-in these days, dabbing a foot is not even an option, you are either riding it or off it.

For example, I ride an on-one inbred which comes in both 26"er and 29"er. The top-tube length, seat tube length and seat angle are identical between the two for the same frame size. To sit on and ride, the dimensions are the same. The standover height will be 1.5" higher on the 29"er which is irrelevant in terms of riding the bike.

So I repeat.

stinkwheel wrote:
The only really insurmountable problem would be if the saddle was hard against the frame and you still couldn't reach the pedals.

____________________
“Rule one: Always stick around for one more drink. That's when things happen. That's when you find out everything you want to know.”
I did the 2010 Round Britain Rally on my 350 Bullet. 89 landmarks, 3 months, 9,500 miles.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

sickpup
Old Timer



Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 23:36 - 02 Jul 2014    Post subject: Reply with quote

stinkwheel wrote:
The standover height will be 1.5" higher on the 29"er which is irrelevant in terms of riding the bike.

So I repeat.


stinkwheel wrote:
The only really insurmountable problem would be if the saddle was hard against the frame and you still couldn't reach the pedals.


But it always helps if you can actually stand over a frame.

If you go back and actually read what I wrote you will realise that the latest 29er's have a VERY high headstock so they can use long travel forks so even with an X length seat tube the top tube at the point you stand over it can be 3+ inches higher.

So I repeat.

It always helps if you can stand over the frame.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

stinkwheel
Bovine Proctologist



Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 00:12 - 03 Jul 2014    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nope. I still disagree.

Standover height is irrelevant. It makes not a shite of difference to your ability to ride the bike. Even less-so if you are clipping in.

If you are standing over the frame, you aren't riding the bike, you are pushing it.

I will repeat for a third time:

stinkwheel wrote:

The only really insurmountable problem would be if the saddle was hard against the frame and you still couldn't reach the pedals.

Pedals. Not ground.

Standover height and fork length affects this not a jot.

In any case. A high headstock saves money in spacers and effort in cutting down the fork tube. You eventually land up with a decent riding position where your shoulders are higher than your arse. Unlike what most people seem to aspire to.[/quote]
____________________
“Rule one: Always stick around for one more drink. That's when things happen. That's when you find out everything you want to know.”
I did the 2010 Round Britain Rally on my 350 Bullet. 89 landmarks, 3 months, 9,500 miles.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

sickpup
Old Timer



Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 00:56 - 03 Jul 2014    Post subject: Reply with quote

stinkwheel wrote:
Nope. I still disagree.

Standover height is irrelevant. It makes not a shite of difference to your ability to ride the bike. Even less-so if you are clipping in.



So you are saying that having to get off the bike every time you stop because you can't stand over the top tube is acceptable?
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

stinkwheel
Bovine Proctologist



Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 00:17 - 04 Jul 2014    Post subject: Reply with quote

sickpup wrote:

So you are saying that having to get off the bike every time you stop because you can't stand over the top tube is acceptable?


I would imagine most people would lean it over to one side slightly.

People used to ride penny farthings.
____________________
“Rule one: Always stick around for one more drink. That's when things happen. That's when you find out everything you want to know.”
I did the 2010 Round Britain Rally on my 350 Bullet. 89 landmarks, 3 months, 9,500 miles.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

sickpup
Old Timer



Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 08:19 - 04 Jul 2014    Post subject: Reply with quote

stinkwheel wrote:
sickpup wrote:

So you are saying that having to get off the bike every time you stop because you can't stand over the top tube is acceptable?


I would imagine most people would lean it over to one side slightly.

People used to ride penny farthings.


Or with the multitude of frame sizes offered these days rather than the one fits all of yesteryear he could just get a bike that fits.

HTH Thumbs Up
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

sickpup
Old Timer



Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 07:31 - 11 Jul 2014    Post subject: Reply with quote

As an example of what I am saying here's a picture.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

sickpup
Old Timer



Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 07:40 - 11 Jul 2014    Post subject: Reply with quote

stinkwheel wrote:
For example, I ride an on-one inbred which comes in both 26"er and 29"er. The top-tube length, seat tube length and seat angle are identical between the two for the same frame size. To sit on and ride, the dimensions are the same. The standover height will be 1.5" higher on the 29"er which is irrelevant in terms of riding the bike.


Incorrect.

Just checked the On One site and their 29er 18" frame has a top tube 0.5 inch longer than the 26" wheel frame. This is generally so toe's don't hit front wheels.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

stinkwheel
Bovine Proctologist



Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 10:28 - 11 Jul 2014    Post subject: Reply with quote

I must admit to not working the dimensions of the on-one frames out exactly because they quoted one in metric and the other in imperial.

Regarding the two bikes you posted pictures of, I imagine the handlebars, seat and pedals land up in the same place in relation to one another? (or if they don't it's because you have chosen to make it that way) That is what I would referr to as the "fit" of the bike.

Judging by the seatpost height and general appearance, someone very much shorter than you could ride either bike until they were so short they could no longer find a stem which allowed them to reach the handlebars. I would surmise that by this point, you're getting into the realms of actual midgets.

Being a short arse is not a reason to avoid a 29"er and I still maintain the wheel size doesn't alter the fit of the frame. That all happens behind and in front of the rider. There may be other reasons but your height is not one of them.

Mrs stinkwheel doesn't quite come up to my shoulder height and can comfotrably ride my 29"er if I drop the saddle for her. She can even reach up onto the top of the ramhorns but finds the angle I have the brake levers set at tricky.
____________________
“Rule one: Always stick around for one more drink. That's when things happen. That's when you find out everything you want to know.”
I did the 2010 Round Britain Rally on my 350 Bullet. 89 landmarks, 3 months, 9,500 miles.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

sickpup
Old Timer



Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 13:01 - 11 Jul 2014    Post subject: Reply with quote

stinkwheel wrote:
Regarding the two bikes you posted pictures of, I imagine the handlebars, seat and pedals land up in the same place in relation to one another? (or if they don't it's because you have chosen to make it that way) That is what I would referr to as the "fit" of the bike.


No they don't. As I said previously the handlebars are considerably higher to allow for the long travel forks. In fact the bottom of the head tube on the Specialized is higher than the top of the head tube on the Trek.

stinkwheel wrote:
Judging by the seatpost height and general appearance, someone very much shorter than you could ride either bike until they were so short they could no longer find a stem which allowed them to reach the handlebars. I would surmise that by this point, you're getting into the realms of actual midgets.


To stand over the trek you would need an inside leg measurement of at least 30inches, the Specialized although the same size would require a 32inch +

stinkwheel wrote:
Being a short arse is not a reason to avoid a 29"er and I still maintain the wheel size doesn't alter the fit of the frame. That all happens behind and in front of the rider. There may be other reasons but your height is not one of them.


I didn't say being a shortarse stopped people from riding a 29er I just pointed out that Pinkyfloyd was looking at bikes that were too big and with the latest 29ers with long travel forks sizing is important as the top tube is slopped so high.

stinkwheel wrote:
Mrs stinkwheel doesn't quite come up to my shoulder height and can comfotrably ride my 29"er if I drop the saddle for her. She can even reach up onto the top of the ramhorns but finds the angle I have the brake levers set at tricky.


Your bike is set up with a short stem and upright position, it also has an effective top tube height of around 16 inches so Mrs Stinkwheel would need to be exceedingly short, below 4'10 to not be able to ride it but that doesn't mean it fits.

Wheel size does and always has had an input to frame size. The larger the wheels the longer the top tube needs to be so that toes don't hit the front wheel on turning. On a 29er this extra length is offset by having a short stem relative to the same size 26er. I actually remember this being a particular problem around 1990-1991 when the first true hybrids appeared, many companies issued short toe clips and straps because toes hit front wheels.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

stinkwheel
Bovine Proctologist



Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 14:12 - 11 Jul 2014    Post subject: Reply with quote

We are, perhaps deliberately, missing one anothers point.

You are making the point that the standover height on modern 29"ers can be radically different to a 26"er due to frame design.

I'm making the point that this is not the same thing as the size of the bike and doesn't matter.

You're looking at it from the ground. I'm looking from the saddle.

Since we've moved onto illustrations. Everyone loves a paint diagram. Smile
____________________
“Rule one: Always stick around for one more drink. That's when things happen. That's when you find out everything you want to know.”
I did the 2010 Round Britain Rally on my 350 Bullet. 89 landmarks, 3 months, 9,500 miles.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts
Old Thread Alert!

The last post was made 12 years, 87 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful?
  Display posts from previous:   
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bike Chat Forums Index -> The Cycling Forum All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
 

Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.15 Sec - Server Load: 0.91 - MySQL Queries: 13 - Page Size: 143.32 Kb