Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1
    Some guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    289

    Surly ICT Sizing

    There is nowhere nearby for me to test a Surly so I'm trying to figure out sizing from geometry alone. I'm 5'10" with a 30.5"-ish inseam. My summer MTBs have been consistently ~590mm (23") effective TT length, and 715mm (~28") standover. Based on those two measurements alone that would put me in a small ICT, but I've yet to hear of anybody of my height riding a S in any model. That makes me uncomfortable putting money down to order one. The store owner assures me that I should ride a M, and I wouldn't mind the extra TT length, but the 30.7" standover causes me concern, especially on a fat bike for riding in snow.

    Would appreciate any thoughts on ICT sizing.

    ICT Geometry is here:

    Surly ICT Sizing-surly-ice-cream-truck-ops-geometri.jpg

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    29
    I'm 5'8'' with 32'' inseam, got a Small after comparing the Medium an Small side by side.
    Ask your lokal dealer to set up the sizes you wanna try - its their business.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cassa89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    535
    For what it's worth, I'm 6'0 and I went with a Medium while the majority of others my height seem to go with a Large. I left most of the steer tube, and have plenty of seat post showing, but I'm super comfy.

  4. #4
    wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    3,419
    i would go medium. minor cockpit adjustments can be made with stem/spacers/bars or saddle adjustments. the stand over is something to consider, but frankly when your riding in the snow, lets say 6-10" of packed trail with powder on the sides, and you go to put a foot down your foot can land 4-6" below where your tires are. so wether your standover gives you 1.5" or 1/4" your still going to need to step off to the side. make sense?

    i understand nobody wants little to no clearance in the standover department, but for the scenario i just described it won't make a difference.
    Rigid SS 29er
    Fat Lefty
    29+

    SS cyclocross
    all steel

    "Fully rigid" isn't a thing.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    223
    Get a medium. I am 5'9" with a 32" inseam. I tried a small and I was ok butmthe seatpost stood out too much and I wanted a longer wheelbase. Medium was better and the top tube was not too high. There is a reason for the way they made that top tube sloping like that with that small stub going into the seat tube.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    23
    I'm 5'11" with a 32" inseam and I bought a large. I demoed a large, then rode a medium around the bike shop before choosing, and the medium felt cramped to me. I do a lot of single track with the bike, and it is big at times, but on long rides (50+ miles), the extra space is nice for staying comfortable.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Aceldama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    321
    I'm 5'11" and when I was shopping the ICT I'm pretty sure I rode a medium and it fit pretty well (615 ETT)

    I ended up with a large Farley 8 which has an ETT similar to a large ICT (630 ETT).

    The shorter ETT felt more frisky in the parking lot but I was convinced to go with the longer bike and put a 50mm stem on it. I love the way it handles.

    TLDR: I think you probably want the medium.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    115
    I'm 5'10" with a 31" inseam and I'm on a Medium, and I believe my shop said he'd recommend either a Large or Medium for me...Similar in my 29er, I'm right on the manufactures border between the two sizes. I haven't at all been concerned with the stand-over height or fit. It really seems just right, and I'm about as close of a comp as you'll get.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    84
    6' and running a medium. Test rode the Large and could have been fine, but wanted to err on the side of extra standover and shorter TT for trail use.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Swerny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,701
    Surly ICT thread

    I would say M at 5"10
    Mike
    Toronto, Canada
    2016 Trek Farley 7
    2015 RSD Mayor Bluto (sold)
    2014 Giant TCX SLR1
    2012 Giant TCR Advanced SL3

  11. #11
    Some guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    289
    Thanks all. Seems pretty unanimous that the M is for me.

  12. #12
    Some guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    289
    Right. So I just took my summer bike (RM Thunderbolt) and put it on some wood planks to simulate the overall standover of the medium ICT at 779mm. I gotta say that is not comfortable at all, even on concrete. It was pretty tight there. Leaves me still wondering if I can get away with a S which, at 744mm, is still higher than my Thunderbolt (715mm).

    Either that or maybe the ICT frame is just not for me .

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nakedbabytoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    946
    I am a 5'3" female, SO of 30". I have a med ICT and the SO is fine. I have a small Beargrease for racing but wanted a ICT a bit more stretched out for longer bikepacking type rides. So SO wasn't at the top of my list, comfort while riding was. So far, 3 months in, SO isn't really an issue. I tend to lean the bike slightly as I dismount, so I think that is why. Plus I am back further(longer TT), so I am not over the center of the tube at it's measured SO but closer to the seat tube, where it is quite a bit shorter.
    I realize most people at my height would have went with a small but I wanted a more "touring bike" type feel while riding. The TT & seat to cockpit measurements on the med were closest to my LHT that I sold to fund the purchase.

    So small, flickable but you'll feel pretty upright while riding(cruiser bike like). Med I think will fit you better ride wise. And I think SO you'll learn to adjust for. At least I did anyways. Non issue so far. Granted, I am nad-less but I haven't hurt the girl bits as of yet.
    2014 Big Dummy
    2015 Salsa Beargrease Carbon 1
    2015 Ice Cream Truck

  14. #14
    Some guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    289
    Hmm. If you are saying that with a 30" SO you are fine on a M, it does have me wondering if the reported Standover on the Surly website is actually the true floor-to-bar measurement on a complete bike. 779mm/30.7" standover is huge for a medium frame. My road bike (Specialized 54cm/M) isn't even that high. Would be curious if anybody has actually measured the true standover on their ICT.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nakedbabytoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    946
    I answered your other inquiry in the ICT thread. It is indeed 30.7" in the center of the TT to the ground, nobody on bike, tires very inflated.
    2014 Big Dummy
    2015 Salsa Beargrease Carbon 1
    2015 Ice Cream Truck

  16. #16
    Some guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    289
    Thanks very much. Appreciate that.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    199
    I'm 6'3 with a 33" inseam and ride an XL (22") ICT Ops.

  18. #18
    Some guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by McGuillicuddy View Post
    Right. So I just took my summer bike (RM Thunderbolt) and put it on some wood planks to simulate the overall standover of the medium ICT at 779mm. I gotta say that is not comfortable at all, even on concrete. It was pretty tight there. Leaves me still wondering if I can get away with a S which, at 744mm, is still higher than my Thunderbolt (715mm).

    Either that or maybe the ICT frame is just not for me .
    So I figured out what my problem was. The standover on my RM is actually nowhere near the 715mm/28.1" that RM claims. It's actually much closer to 31"+ (my bike is totally unmodified). The only place it goes down to 28.1" is right down but the seat tube. So my assumption that the standover on the ICT would be about 2" higher than my RM was total faulty. Based on some measurements taken by some helpful folks in the "ICT Thread" the ICT looks to actually have a lower top tube than my RM, which is totally in contradiction to the published geometries.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: makkot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by cassa89 View Post
    For what it's worth, I'm 6'0 and I went with a Medium while the majority of others my height seem to go with a Large. I left most of the steer tube, and have plenty of seat post showing, but I'm super comfy.
    hi, I'm 6'0 too and tempted by a M ICT.
    had others L bikes but I did feel great with my ros9 plus M size.
    only issue is that I have to place the saddle tube much over the minimum insert even if it's a 410mm.

    My insteam is 88cm -> 34,6inch

    can you handle to have a proper saddle tube insert on your ICT size M ?
    thanks
    Last edited by makkot; 03-11-2017 at 04:42 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Surly Instigator 2.0 sizing
    By Robopotomus in forum Surly
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-23-2016, 09:48 AM
  2. Surly Sizing Troll
    By JonathanGennick in forum Surly
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-11-2014, 11:55 AM
  3. Surly Krampus Sizing and versatility
    By dalhopgood in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-20-2014, 10:11 PM
  4. Surly Cross Check Sizing
    By davejs in forum Cyclocross
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-04-2014, 11:49 PM
  5. Sizing Surly vs Salsa Frames
    By onepivot in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-29-2013, 08:49 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •