Newbie bike sizing question

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Colin Song, Oct 20, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Colin Song

    Colin Song Guest

    Hi all,

    Good day. I would appreciate if you can give me some comment/feedback on the sizing question I have
    for a new mountain bike. I am looking at a 2004 Kona Kikapu Deluxe and they come in 16" & 18" sizes
    (NO 17"). Top tube lenght are 22.1" & 23.1" (horizontal C-C), and stand over heights are
    29.7" & 30.8" respectively. Other dimension seems to be the same, except head tube is 0.6" longer on
    the 18" bike.

    My height is 5'8" with inseam of 31" (170 lbs)and based on my findings, a 17" size will be "best"
    fit. However, looking at the above 2 choices, which one would better fit me?

    I do plan to do some off-road cross country (20%) & technical riding (30%), and also some on-road
    touring(50%).

    Also, is it true & proven that a slightly smaller frame size is more suitable (better control,
    maneuverability) than a larger one?

    Thanks in advance.
     
    Tags:


  2. Mojo Deluxe

    Mojo Deluxe Guest

    "Colin Song" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Hi all,
    >
    > Good day. I would appreciate if you can give me some comment/feedback on
    the
    > sizing question I have for a new mountain bike. I am looking at a 2004 Kona Kikapu Deluxe and they
    > come in 16" & 18" sizes (NO 17"). Top tube lenght are 22.1" & 23.1" (horizontal C-C), and stand
    > over heights are
    > 29.7" & 30.8" respectively. Other dimension seems to be the same, except head tube is 0.6" longer
    > on the 18" bike.
    >
    > My height is 5'8" with inseam of 31" (170 lbs)and based on my findings, a 17" size will be "best"
    > fit. However, looking at the above 2 choices, which one would better fit me?
    >
    > I do plan to do some off-road cross country (20%) & technical riding (30%), and also some on-road
    > touring(50%).
    >
    > Also, is it true & proven that a slightly smaller frame size is more suitable (better control,
    > maneuverability) than a larger one?
    >
    Go see your nearest Kona dealer.
     
  3. Super Slinky

    Super Slinky Guest

    Colin Song said...

    > Hi all,
    >
    > Good day. I would appreciate if you can give me some comment/feedback on the sizing question I
    > have for a new mountain bike. I am looking at a 2004 Kona Kikapu Deluxe and they come in 16" & 18"
    > sizes (NO 17"). Top tube lenght are 22.1" & 23.1" (horizontal C-C), and stand over heights are
    > 29.7" & 30.8" respectively. Other dimension seems to be the same, except head tube is 0.6" longer
    > on the 18" bike.
    >
    > My height is 5'8" with inseam of 31" (170 lbs)and based on my findings, a 17" size will be "best"
    > fit. However, looking at the above 2 choices, which one would better fit me?
    >
    > I do plan to do some off-road cross country (20%) & technical riding (30%), and also some on-road
    > touring(50%).
    >
    > Also, is it true & proven that a slightly smaller frame size is more suitable (better control,
    > maneuverability) than a larger one?
    >
    > Thanks in advance.

    For the type of riding you will be doing, I would go with the larger frame. I think you will find
    that the smaller frame feels quite small and you will enjoy the relaxed position of the larger frame
    more. The smaller frame would be better for jumps and other technical situations, but it doesn't
    sound like you will be doing much of that.
     
  4. David

    David Guest

    "Colin Song" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Hi all,
    >
    > Good day. I would appreciate if you can give me some comment/feedback on the sizing question I
    > have for a new mountain bike. I am looking at a 2004 Kona Kikapu Deluxe and they come in 16" & 18"
    > sizes (NO 17"). Top tube lenght are 22.1" & 23.1" (horizontal C-C), and stand over heights are
    > 29.7" & 30.8" respectively. Other dimension seems to be the same, except head tube is 0.6" longer
    > on the 18" bike.
    >
    > My height is 5'8" with inseam of 31"

    I would expect the 16" to be a good fit, although you might need a longer seat post than comes on
    the bike. You can try it out and see.

    David
     
  5. Westie

    Westie Guest

    "Colin Song" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Hi all,
    >
    > Good day. I would appreciate if you can give me some comment/feedback on
    the
    > sizing question I have for a new mountain bike. I am looking at a 2004 Kona Kikapu Deluxe and they
    > come in 16" & 18" sizes (NO 17"). Top tube lenght are 22.1" & 23.1" (horizontal C-C), and stand
    > over heights are
    > 29.7" & 30.8" respectively. Other dimension seems to be the same, except head tube is 0.6" longer
    > on the 18" bike.
    <snip>

    I'm certainly no expert on this but either size would probably be fine but since you're only going
    to be doing a little bit of technical stuff versus 70% of road and XC style riding I'd have a
    closer look at the 18" frame. The 16" will feel more compact and manoeuvrable versus the more open
    and laid out 18". Some of the benefits of a larger frame will outweigh the benefits of a smaller
    frame given your use. If you think that you'll be doing more and more technical stuff it would pay
    to go to the 16".
    --
    Westie (Replace 'invalid' with 'yahoo' when replying.)
     
  6. David

    David Guest

    "Westie" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > "Colin Song" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > Hi all,
    > >
    > > Good day. I would appreciate if you can give me some comment/feedback on
    > the
    > > sizing question I have for a new mountain bike. I am looking at a 2004 Kona Kikapu Deluxe and
    > > they come in 16" & 18" sizes (NO 17"). Top tube lenght are 22.1" & 23.1" (horizontal C-C), and
    > > stand over heights are
    > > 29.7" & 30.8" respectively. Other dimension seems to be the same, except head tube is 0.6"
    > > longer on the 18" bike.
    > <snip>
    >
    > I'm certainly no expert on this but either size would probably be fine but since you're only going
    > to be doing a little bit of technical stuff versus 70% of road and XC style riding I'd have a
    > closer look at the 18" frame. The 16" will feel more compact and manoeuvrable versus the more open
    > and laid out 18". Some of the benefits of a larger frame will outweigh the benefits of a smaller
    > frame given your use.

    Unless it doesn't fit well. A 23.1" TT sounds kind of long for a 5'8" rider, and with a 31" inseam,
    he doesn't have a long torso. I could be wrong. My dimensions are different than his, but it doesn't
    sound like a fit to me.

    David
     
  7. Colin Song

    Colin Song Guest

    Thanks for the feedback. Both bikes fit, with the adjustment of stem size and saddle position.

    The 16" will need to be used with the seat post extended 1" beyond max (need to change to a longer
    post) and saddle pushed 1cm rearwards, with a 85mm 5 degree rise stem.

    The 18" will have the seat post withing the max range, saddle in "normal" position, and 75mm 5
    degree rise stem.

    Question is whether :-

    a) a shorter wheelbase is better (by 1")
    b) shorter stem is better (by 10mm)
    c) smaller frame is better (by 1" horizontal TT)

    I have also seen many pictures of XC racers in action, and seems that their bikes are a little
    smaller than the ideal size. E.g. the photo on www.specialized.com landing page.

    >
    > Unless it doesn't fit well. A 23.1" TT sounds kind of long for a 5'8"
    rider, and with
    > a 31" inseam, he doesn't have a long torso. I could be wrong. My
    dimensions
    > are different than his, but it doesn't sound like a fit to me.
    >
    > David
     
  8. Penny S

    Penny S Guest

    Colin Song spray painted on a boxcar:
    > Thanks for the feedback. Both bikes fit, with the adjustment of stem size and saddle position.
    >
    > The 16" will need to be used with the seat post extended 1" beyond max (need to change to a longer
    > post) and saddle pushed 1cm rearwards, with a 85mm 5 degree rise stem.
    >
    > The 18" will have the seat post withing the max range, saddle in "normal" position, and 75mm 5
    > degree rise stem.
    >
    > Question is whether :-
    >
    > a) a shorter wheelbase is better (by 1")
    > b) shorter stem is better (by 10mm)
    > c) smaller frame is better (by 1" horizontal TT)
    >
    > I have also seen many pictures of XC racers in action, and seems that their bikes are a little
    > smaller than the ideal size. E.g. the photo on www.specialized.com landing page.
    >

    which one FEELS better?

    ps
     
  9. Shaun Rimmer

    Shaun Rimmer Guest

    "jack" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > It's easier to make a small bike bigger.

    WTF is difficult about wielding an angle grinder?


    Shaun aRe - <ScrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>>>>
     
  10. Dave

    Dave Guest

    "Colin Song" <[email protected]> wrote in message:

    >I am looking at a 2004 Kona Kikapu Deluxe I do plan to do some off-road cross country (20%) &
    >technical riding (30%), and also some on-road touring(50%).

    Buying a full suspension bike for 50% road riding seems like a waste to me, unless you're
    anticipating a lot of cobblestone roads.

    Later he wrote...
    >I have also seen many pictures of XC racers in action, and seems that
    their
    >bikes are a little smaller than the ideal size. E.g. the photo on www.specialized.com landing page.

    Ummmm, thats a triathalon bike...

    Instead of 1 $1600 FS rig why not get an $800 hardtail and an $800 road bike? After a season or two
    you'll have the experience to know what works for your riding style and conditions, and can upgrade
    if needed. And my calculations show that having 2 bikes is 4 times more fun than owning just one!

    Dave
     
  11. Colin Song

    Colin Song Guest

    Colin wrote...
    > >I have also seen many pictures of XC racers in action, and seems that
    > their
    > >bikes are a little smaller than the ideal size. E.g. the photo on www.specialized.com
    > >landing page.
    >
    Dave wrote...
    >>Ummmm, thats a triathalon bike...

    Actually the picture has been changed, used to be Filip Meirhaeghe on an Epic...
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...