You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
As per title really, does anyone else ride a bike that on paper is ‘too big’ for them?
I’m annoyingly (height wise anyway), always inbetween sizes. 5’ 9” usually puts me smack bang in between a large and a medium. My last bike was a large Patrol which was perfect but most people around my size ride mediums.
Looking at my next bike, a Mondraker Foxy, as soon as I mention my height I’m met with a sharp intake of breath followed by ‘they’re proper long them pal you need a medium’. I was all set for ordering a medium but after a carpark trundle and play on a medium followed by a large I’m 99% set on a large.
I am all legs and arms, the large felt much better, but I just have a nagging doubt I’m doing the wrong thing going with the large. If I hadn’t compared all the numbers of my old bike v the new bike prior to riding the new large bike I probably wouldn’t be writing this.
Pointiess ramble over.
at 5'9" I really can't imagine you are all arms and legs. Certainly not long ones anyway.
Go with what feels right. I spent years riding bikes that were too small because "everybody else" had foot-long seatposts showing and took the mick out of bikes that looked like gates. Then I bought an XL (I am 6'2) and my life has been transformed.
Probably not much use to you but a riding buddy has just gone from a Large Bronson to a Medium Foxy and doesn't seem to be having any issues, think hes about your height (and mine, 5'9").
Ive gone from a Medium Patrol to a Large Firebird, the extra reach is very noticeable, still trying to get used to it.
For drops and steep stuff its gives you amazing confidence but I just find that on your standard red type trails its all a bit dull, you go quick but there is none of that 'buzz' or 'pop' I got with the Patrol.
Going up a size on most modern bikes is made a little easier as most now to tend to have a low standover height.
A mate fell full into the ‘long, low, slack’ and wide bars trend. Bought a large longshot geo. Bfe and put 800mm bars on. He’s 5’7”
Imagine a starfish trying to ride a bike... didn’t last long before he sold it.
All depends on the bike brand, just like clothes manufactures, one companies medium isn't the same as another companies
For example im 5ft 10in tall and a medium in a Transition Patrol & Scout, yet in any Specialized bikes im a large
Go with what feels right for you, your the one who has to ride it
5’ 9” usually puts me smack bang in between a large and a medium
Your overall height is not a good guide to bike fit because people of the same height can have very different proportions of legs, arms, and torso. On top of that, "Large", "Medium", etc vary massively between different bikes. I'm 5'11". I have an old XL hardtail that has a 60 cm ETT, a medium sized 2008 Anthem that has a 58 cm ETT, and a fairly new small hardtail that has a 57 cm ETT. All three seem to fit quite comfortably with a bit of adjusting stem length and seat layback.
I’m not sure what the reach figures etc are in the Mondrager you’re looking at, but could be comparable to Bird bikes as they’re quite long. I’m 5’9 too,
and whilst for my height I’ve got fairly long legs I’d say I’ve got short arms. I’m riding a ML size Aeris (helpfully they have a size between medium and large) and I’m ok on that. Initially I found it great for trucking down rockybstuff, but slow speed technical corners and drops were hard work getting the front up enough. A year on I’m much more comfortable with it and my technique is much improved.
The geometry table is here for you to compare:
Only you are going to ride it. You've done the right thing and test ridden both. The numbers may not add up but if one felt better than the other that's the one to go for. Size guides are just that, a guide. Go with how the bike felt in real life rather than on paper
Just looked and the foxy Large is a little bit longer than the Aeris ml.
What I’d ask is did you try and manual the foxy when you test rode it? Also, did you get the chance to try and corner hard on the large, or was that also a car park ride?
For me the log / low / slack thing is brilliant for the most part - but manuals and fast flat corners are the hardest bits. The length makes manuals harder work and also you really need to concentrate initially on getting the front wheel weighted enough to get the bike to turn in and stay gripping.
Only you are going to ride it.
Spot on ... I'm always being pushed onto a large whenever I try and hire to test. (and I'm 5'10 and a half) but short legs for my height. My T-130 is medium and not a chance in hell I'd ride a Large. My Nukeproof is the OLD Large ... way longer but doesn't feel too big like the Medium T-130 does in the seat post.
Yes. I'm 5'9" and ride a L 2016 Nukeproof and a 19.5" Trek. In both cases the smaller sizes felt too short.
I'm 5'9 my bikes are a small, medium, medium-large and large.
What does that tell you? The letter isn't a measurement and it's not consistent. Anyone trying to size you by height alone needs a quick slap and just let you get on the bike and see how it works.
The advantages of long low slack is you can get your legs over most bikes and pick the length you want.
5’8” , ride a large Stumpjumper, the medium felt far too cramped. Really glad I had a car park test as all the online guides have me as a medium.
It’s made me think twice about buying a bike without testing it.
“I’m annoyingly (height wise anyway), always inbetween sizes. 5’ 9” usually puts me smack bang in between a large and a medium.“
Does it? I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a size chart that makes 5’9” a large frame, though that doesn’t stop plenty of riders that height going up a size. 5’10” - 5’11” tends to be the medium-large division.
Plenty of pros are on bigger frames for the extra stability when racing - and I’ve read at a few interviews saying they’d rather ride a size smaller because it’s more fun but the longer bike is quicker.
I'm 5ft 7 (and-a-half) and all three of my MTBs are sized large, because the longer reach is much better for me than the same models in medium.
As long as you're leggy enough for the seat tube length, go for the bike that has your preferred geometry.
I'd probably be on a medium Foxy 29 though!
Mountain bike manufacturers more and more design the bikes that you are able to pick between two frame sizes.
In such a case: your biking style will decide!
I am all legs and arms, the large felt much better
A spidery 6'2" here and generally leaning towards XL or a long L
Big bikes work both ways. Some would say clumsy some would say stable. You may feel like a passenger when things get out of control but by the same token they have a tendency to go where you point them
Lots of room on climbs but feels like a stalled oil tanker on switchbacks. A motorbike on the descents but smashes the cranks on rock steps.
Carves berms but tricky to flick between trees
Your choice really
I tend to go up a size. Im 5ft 10 and ride a large. My legs are relatively short so I tend to prefer longer bikes so for me the llimits are usually around standover height and fitting an appropriate length dropper in.
Yes and no.
Im 5ft6 on a good day. I started off with a small canyon, it fitted perfectly.
the small five (2013) i had was borderline too small. It was on paper the ideal bike for me.
The Liteville 301 was a medium. This should have been too big for me. It wasnt. If anything it was the same as the five.
The 2019 stumpy ive just got is a medium.It should be too big for me. It isnt.
You have to throw a leg over the bikes but i would also agree that your riding style will dictate a lot. Very steep stuff i prefer a shorter bike. Fast stuff longer.
Nope, if I'm between sizes I tend to go for the smaller size but I did have a medium old shape Rocket 650B (I'm at the upper end of the small and lower end of the medium at 172cm), it was far too big for me and I ended up hating it. It was just too long. I've now got a two year old 16" Cube Stereo 140 (much cheapness!) which is apparently way too short and steep and I'll die as soon as I even try to point it down a hill (because those numbers are so 2013, darling) but I'm really enjoying it.
YMMV, obvs.
Yeah because I convince myself its a bargain 😀
Manufacturers have sorted standover these days, so personally I’d size up rather than down. But only you can decide. Listen to your hunch!
The opposite.. I got my T130 in a large and a medium... I tried both.... then tried both again.... and again.... and kept the medium, despite bike shop guy saying I'm a large.
Yes'ish, at 6'1" I'm always in the middle of frame size, e.g. between a 56 and 58cm road frame.
In the past I went down a size and the bike was never comfortable, now I size up and am comfortable. I have a long torso so a longer tt is better, sizing up is my default now. But it is defo cooler looking to ride a smaller frame 😁
Thanks everyone, some interesting points there.
Stand over is fine on both of them. Both sizes I’ll get a 150/160mm dropper in at full extension no problem.
99.999% of my riding is natural stuff, 30 mile local rides, Pennines, Peak/Lake District kind of riding. I only really tend to visit trail centres and the like once every couple of years (I’m in no way knocking them at all).
I notice a couple of you mentioned similar heights on medium Patrols, personally my large Patrol never ever felt big it always felt perfect. The only thing I can think of is that it’s the type of riding I generally do pushes me to feeling more comfortable on a longer bike, maybe if I rode more tight and twisty stuff I’d feel better on a slightly shorter bike?
Reach on my old bike was 457, new medium is 470 and large 490. So on paper it reads as quite a jump. I’d be coming down from a 40mm stem on my old bike to a 30mm that’s standard on the new bike.
Standover is not that relevant on a mountain bike. Effective reach seat to bars is key I'd say, and leg reach to the pedals. These are adjustable things however.
I'd also say it's down to what you adapt to. My older bikes were/are shorter for a medium frame than my newer for same size. I'm riding mostly long, wide and slack now but swap back sometimes to my old Nomad Mk2 which feels very short when I initially ride it, but then after a while it feels fine. After all, it used to feel fine when I rode it as the main bike.
The reach on a medium Foxy is 470mm, the large is 490mm.
The Patrol large was 457mm, XL was 483.
At 5'9 I'm surprised you're comfortable on a large, 490mm reach is pretty long. 470mm reach is pretty long too at your height, even with long arms!
It is entirely up to you, was it just a car park test you had? I'd recommend you get a test ride if not.
Whyte would have you bang on a medium with a 458mm reach, and they're pretty progressive and spot on with geometry these days.
I have a spreadsheet to help me with such dilemma's 🙂
5ft11 but dwarven from the hips down. Always going between M and L - very dependant on manufacturer. Last few bikes have been L because of the reduction in seat tube. If I can't fit a 150mm dropper in it, I'm not going to buy it.
Having said that I have a M SolarisMax and a ML Aeris 120 (just bough 2nd hand). Both of those I'm at the top of th sizing charts for, but I'm very happy to have the 'smaller' size.
I've also found the spreadsheet does not make up for a test ride. If you've ridden them both, go with the one you like most.
I’m 178cm (5’10”) and almost always end up on a Medium unless it’s a Santa Cruz in which case it’s Large. Any other Large’s I’ve bought after listening to recommendations, I’ve regretted as they’ve been gates.
At 5'10" I'm in a similar boat to you OP, I'm normally shown on fitting tables as being on the cusp between 'M' and 'L' or somewhere around 54-56cm (depending on manufacturer and bike type).
Recently I've found just going for the larger size is generally beneficial, but I almost always wants to fit a shorter stem than stock, so I tend to end up at about the same reach (Bar to BB) but with a marginally longer wheelbase than if I'd erred on the smaller size.
Your overall height is not a good guide to bike fit because people of the same height can have very different proportions of legs, arms, and torso.
Indeed, I have a mate who is 3" shorter than me but his arms and legs are a couple of inches longer. I sort of fit his bikes on size, but there are weird things to deal with like his bars are always really low.
I'm borderline M/L and my Salsa is large. I have a 60mm stem on it and narrower bars than it would otherwise come with. Steering is pretty quick, which I like. Also has a nice big front triangle, handy for using a frame bag!
I'd probably say my medium mk1 Solaris is little bit small (great fun for flicking about) but my large KM Ops is a little on the big side (not loads of seat post showing for example but great for mile munching).
Overall I guess that makes me goldilocks then.
Both sizes I’ll get a 150/160mm dropper in at full extension no problem.
Double check that. Expensive mistake if it isn't the case. With the prior generation 27.5 Foxy Carbon full insertion of a 150mm Reverb isn't possible and then they made the Reverb 10mm longer "for no good reason (tm)". I think the point where this is an issue is more at 5'7" than 5'9" so you'll probably be ok but ... be certain.