Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    312

    New rumblefish right size

    Gonna pick up a 2012 base RF next month.

    I'm 5' 8" and I wonder if 17.5" is the right size for me, or should I consider 15.5" size.

    I demoed a 17.5" 2011 RF last month and it felt OK, so I'm leaning towards the 17.5".
    I couldn't try the 15.5" RF since 17.5" is the only demo RF my LBS has.

    Should I have any reason to worry if I buy the 17.5"? The RF I gonna buy will serve me for the next five years or more, so I wanna be sure I'm picking up the right size.


    What do you suggest? 17.5" or 15.5"?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    29
    My preference would be 17.5" unless your inseam is like 26". Some like riding the smaller frames, but not I.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: driver bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,299
    Personally I always feel more comfortable on a GF one size up from any other manufacturer.

    At 5'10" the 19.5" GF works for me . On paper a 17.5" should fit well but in practice it felt cramped.

    x2 on the 17.5" working fine for you, though your LBS should be answering any worries you have before you buy the bike.

    Did they have any 15.5" GF bikes in stock? I doesn't hurt to try one of those for size fit.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5
    I'm 5'8" also and looking at the 2012 RF. I sat on a 17.5 and the reach felt long. What did you end up getting?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    312
    Hi eb!
    =====
    well, I finally ended up getting a 17.5" base RF.

    I took a 17.5" 2011 RF One for the weekend last october and it felt just right fot me.
    I knew that the 2012 RF models had a slight geometry changes (120mm rear travell Vs 110mm for 2011 RF models), so I wanted to be sure that the 17.5" RF size for 2012 would feel right gor me, just like the 2011 did.

    If you sat on the 17.5" and the reach felt long then I guess you have two options:
    1. Sit on the 15.5" size and see how it feels.
    2. Ask your LBS to put a shorter stem on the 17.5" and see if there's any difference (I'm sure you'd be able to tell the difference) .

    But most important - you must have a decent test ride out on the trail.
    Get the bike from your LBS for the weekend, like I did. That's the best way for you to really feel the bike and know if the size (and other components) are good for you.
    If you can't arrange this, Check if there are any TREK demo days in your area.

    Good luck!

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5
    I tend to like the smaller bikes I guess. The 17.5 just felt big. I ride a 54cm road bike for comparison.

    My old rigid trek 3500 has kept me honest on the trails - talk about chain slap! Can't even imagine what its going to be like riding a Rumblefish all over the mountain.
    I agree with you on the test rides in a perfect world, but thats why i do my research. Test riding every bike i like and in my size is probably not an option. I chose the rumblefish becasue thats what my lbs recommends and stands behind. said he would get me any bike i want, but stocks the rumblefish only.

    I love mountain biking, it wouldnt matter if i was on a schwinn from wal-mart. this is going to be awesome for me. maybe in a yr or 2 when i know more about the sport, i can move on or stay.

    I've ordered a 15.5 Rumblefish Base. If the size doesnt work out the LBS will work with me. They exchanged a roadie for me for the next higher model with no questions asked. He thinks the 15.5 will be perfect for me. I liked the trek 4300 16" with 26" wheels fit wise.

    Will update this thread for future buyers....shoudl have bike in a few more days

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    312
    Hi eb28!
    ======
    As a brand new RF owner, all I can tell is that you did a very good choice.
    I had a 2009 TREK 4300 (18") and now I have a 2012 base RF (17.5").
    My first ride on the RF was a 36 mile desert ride that took me about 7 hours, and what a ride it was!!! fantastic, superb, wonderful, excellent - you name it.
    The RF is a true magic carpet! you really gonna enjoy it.

    safe rides, Mo.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5
    Just picked it up last night after work. The 15.5 feels right on to me. Def not too small.

    Ride report coming soon

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,604
    I'm 5'11" and bought a 17.5" 2011 Rumblefish 1 with the thinking that the smaller bike might be more maneuverable than a 19". I also have a 19" Rig SS. The 17.5 felt fine in the parking lot with a 105 mm stem, but on the trails I was definitely too forward biased compared to my Rig. rather than have the fork soak up bumps and roll over, it tended to dive into the roots a bit more. It was subtle, but definitely there. For a trail bike, I'd recommend the bigger bike with a shorter stem than a smaller bike with a longer stem - you'll be more "in" the bike rather than on top of it. Consequently, My RF 1 is for sale.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5
    thanks for the info, kdiddy, but i already bought the 15.5. i think this size suits my style but we shall see.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3
    I have a Trek Single Track 950 that I've had since 1996 and it's in excellent shape. I've always found this bike difficult to pedal uphill and generally pretty uncomfortable to ride overall. I've been looking for an upgrade for a year or so. I was in my LBS buying my daughter a bike, then looked at bikes for myself. Most seems quite uncomfortable (5'10 and 200lb) but when I sat on the Rumblefish I was amazed at how comfortable it was (and it was the 19"). The LBS had a "sale" and that bike was marked down from $3200 to $2800. It was a RF 1 which I have since found that I can get cheaper than the sale price. I'd really like to get XT components and saw that's what the Rumblefish II is equipped with. Anyone know what a good price for RF2 would be? Any suggestions of a place to purchase it? If I go to my LBS they will charge the full retail price as they will have to special order it.

    Sorry for the slight hijack, but the site won't let me post a new thread until I have 5 posts.
    Last edited by themarkg; 01-21-2012 at 02:48 PM.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5
    let us know what area you're in and maybe someone can point you in the right direction

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    29
    themarkg,
    I would think you could get a better deal on the RF1 than that. It was last years model. I have seen David's World in Central Florida sell the bike for as low as $2400. As for the RF2, they sold out fast last year, late spring or early summer, I believe. As for any suggestions on where to purchase, I do not believe Trek dealers are allowed to sell the bikes unless you come in. I may be mistaken on that.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by eb28 View Post
    let us know what area you're in and maybe someone can point you in the right direction
    I'm located in Austin Texas.
    Thanks

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by onebadscrambler View Post
    themarkg,
    I would think you could get a better deal on the RF1 than that. It was last years model. I have seen David's World in Central Florida sell the bike for as low as $2400. As for the RF2, they sold out fast last year, late spring or early summer, I believe. As for any suggestions on where to purchase, I do not believe Trek dealers are allowed to sell the bikes unless you come in. I may be mistaken on that.
    Thanks for the reposnse onebadscrambler. Looked at some deals online, I saw a dealer in the Chicago area having a sale on Trek bikes. Some were steeply discounted but the note on the bottom of the page was no internet sales and bikes need to be picked up in person at the store. Sounded like some Trek imposed restriction.
    Last edited by themarkg; 01-22-2012 at 08:40 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. 2011 Rumblefish V. Rumblefish 1
    By GatorB in forum Gary Fisher
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 12-31-2011, 11:07 PM
  2. 2010 Rumblefish I Seat Clamp Size
    By enOehT in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-06-2011, 06:16 PM
  3. 2012 base Rumblefish right size
    By mo6500 in forum Trek
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-02-2011, 06:29 PM
  4. Rumblefish II
    By Merost in forum Trek
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-03-2011, 10:40 AM
  5. Rumblefish vs RIP 9
    By MI-29er in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 01-03-2010, 02:02 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
  •