Results 1 to 23 of 23
  1. #1
    The Brutally Handsome
    Reputation: Sizzler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,222

    SS Frame Size Up or Down?

    For those of you that are somewhere between sizes, did you size up or down for SS?

    For my last SS I sized down, which seemed to work well because most of the climbing was out of the saddle. I'm getting ready to buy my next SS and I'm wondering if I should go with tried and true or try something new. Thanks for any opinions!

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeffzx12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    30
    Hi SIzzler
    I normally ride a L (6.2) but went a XL carve SS and happy I did. Allows me to move around a bit more when I'm mashing!
    Cheers.

  3. #3
    One Gear
    Reputation: .40AET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,062
    Seat post length usually limits me to only going up in size.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    711
    If I'm standing a lot, I like more reach.

  5. #5
    ask
    ask is offline
    user
    Reputation: ask's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    997
    My $0.02...

    I am usually between a Lg and Med frame. My general rule of thumb is buy a smaller frame and stretch w/ components. However, I think it really depends on how you want your bike to feel and how/what you ride.

    My last SS was a large 29er. It was technically the correct size for me, but always felt big on technical trails. On on my latest SS, I went with a slightly smaller Med frame. I kept a short stem and put a dropper post on it. For XC it might be a bit short... but I could always stretch a bit with a longer stem. It pedals great and handles tight singletrack/bumps/jumps well. It feels similar to my trail bike or my DJ, but w/ 29er wheels. Fun stuff!

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,183
    I am of the opinion that bike fit is pretty important and should be one of the first considerations in selecting a frame. It's not always possible to get a perfect fit from a stock frame but remember that brand x is not always going to have the same top tube length as brand y. Know your preferred seat height, handlebar reach and relative height and try to find a frame that lets you get in that position without resorting to wacky stem or seat post length modifications.

  7. #7
    Warrior's Society
    Reputation: mtnbikej's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    6,763
    I like the bigger frame for when I'm standing......and we all know on the SS you spend a lot of time standing.

    Don't like too feel like the bars are underneath me on the smaller frame.
    I resolve to constantly assert my honest opinion on anything and everything - whether it is requested or not.
    Bucky the Cat

  8. #8
    The need for singlespeed
    Reputation: zaskaranddriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    973
    My recent build ended up a little short in the top tube, which as mtnbikej indicates, left me feeling a tad crunched on the first few climbs. However, the bike immediately felt lighter in its dynamics, and being slightly more upright is easier on my lower back. Having gotten used to it's shortness I don't even notice it on climbs anymore. For me going small was all win.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    77
    I think the bigger fit is better, it lets you put on a shorter stem and you can stand up without having your knees above the bars. Plus when you're seated on a downhill, you feel that much more "in" the bike.

  10. #10
    psycho cyclo addict
    Reputation: edubfromktown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,294
    Quote Originally Posted by ask View Post
    My $0.02...

    I am usually between a Lg and Med frame. My general rule of thumb is buy a smaller frame and stretch w/ components. However, I think it really depends on how you want your bike to feel and how/what you ride.

    My last SS was a large 29er. It was technically the correct size for me, but always felt big on technical trails. On on my latest SS, I went with a slightly smaller Med frame. I kept a short stem and put a dropper post on it. For XC it might be a bit short... but I could always stretch a bit with a longer stem. It pedals great and handles tight singletrack/bumps/jumps well. It feels similar to my trail bike or my DJ, but w/ 29er wheels. Fun stuff!
    +1 though it really depends on personal preference. My first SS was a GF Rig 19". At 6'2", I was on the tall side for it. Rode all over the place, occasional 40+ milers too and it was fine. I recently built a large SIR 9 rigid SS. Feels as though I have a bit more room but overall the ride is not dramatically different.
    【ツ】 eDub 【ツ】

  11. #11
    Bro Mountainbiker
    Reputation: Sheepo5669's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    3,583
    Find one that fits you MR. Sizzle Chest
    Raised in a Chicken-Coop by Chickens

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    482
    Old thread, but I'm curious what people's thoughts on this are. I think I might upgrade my On One 26 frame to an Ibis Tranny 26 when a great deal comes along, but since there's so few, there are limited options for size. I'm 5'7.5" with long arms so would a large also work for me or should I stick with finding a medium.

    Unrelated, but On One fits a 650b in the back and 29 front which 26 Tranny does not... haven't made the conversion yet, but planning on doing it soon. Would I miss the larger wheels going to a 26b on a Tranny?

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    6,233
    I rode frames that were a size too small for me for a long time. No more of that!
    Get off my lawn! - read my bikenerd blog
    Niner ROS9 SS

  14. #14
    wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    3,496
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    I rode frames that were a size too small for me for a long time. No more of that!
    ditto
    Rigid SS 29er
    Fat Lefty
    29+

    SS cyclocross
    all steel

    "Fully rigid" isn't a thing.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DeeZee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    6,198
    Quote Originally Posted by michael1 View Post
    Old thread, but I'm curious what people's thoughts on this are. I think I might upgrade my On One 26 frame to an Ibis Tranny 26 when a great deal comes along, but since there's so few, there are limited options for size. I'm 5'7.5" with long arms so would a large also work for me or should I stick with finding a medium.

    Unrelated, but On One fits a 650b in the back and 29 front which 26 Tranny does not... haven't made the conversion yet, but planning on doing it soon. Would I miss the larger wheels going to a 26b on a Tranny?
    That's a tough one. Normally I am long TT / short stem guy but my SS has a shorter TT ,100mm stem and wide WIDE...bars. The bike feels so dam good I wouldn't change a thing.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ARandomBiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,668
    Choosing a 'size' is bass-ackwards, IMO; saying you'd ride a Medium geared bike, but want a Lg SS means nothing unless you at least compare the ETT or front center.
    I'm really comfortable with a 600mm ETT and an 80mm stem.
    Case in point: an 18" medium On-One Scandal or inbred has an ETT of 602mm. A small Vassago JabberWocky has an ETT of 600. Both bikes feel perfect to me. A medium Jabber has a 615mm ETT. I'm not saying 15mm is a lot, but we make stem changes and seatpost setback changes in 5-10mm increments. Seems silly to make a change like that just because they both say medium. 615 would be reachey for me, so a small Vassago would be more consistent with what I feel good with

  17. #17
    psycho cyclo addict
    Reputation: edubfromktown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,294
    Really depends on the geometry and what sort of riding is involved. Frame sizes vary widely between manufacturers too so sizing by frame measurements is a better approach than Sm, Med, Large, etc.

    I've had stretched out SS's which are great for longer rides (say 45-90 miler range). I tend to like a more compact setup for technical trails.
    【ツ】 eDub 【ツ】

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4
    I bought the new Kona Unit in size medium. I like the fit and it feels great but now i'm having doubts should i have to buy large because the seatpost is all the way up to minimum insertion mark. I'm 5'9" and have 32" inseam.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Andy R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by Tulok View Post
    Plus when you're seated on a downhill, you feel that much more "in" the bike.
    Why would you be sitting going downhill? Unless it's just on asphalt and then it doesn't matter anyway.

  20. #20
    wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    3,496
    Quote Originally Posted by jurso View Post
    I bought the new Kona Unit in size medium. I like the fit and it feels great but now i'm having doubts should i have to buy large because the seatpost is all the way up to minimum insertion mark. I'm 5'9" and have 32" inseam.
    if the bike fits well otherwise, all you need is a longer seatpost, not a new frame.
    Rigid SS 29er
    Fat Lefty
    29+

    SS cyclocross
    all steel

    "Fully rigid" isn't a thing.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by *OneSpeed* View Post
    if the bike fits well otherwise, all you need is a longer seatpost, not a new frame.
    That's what i thought. Thank you.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: economatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    316
    I agree with most of what others said--I prefer a half size up for SS (assuming that's available) if you're comparing the same geometry. But really, I think it should be on a case-by-case basis where you're looking at overall bike fit instead of making a blanket statement about frame size.

    Quote Originally Posted by jurso View Post
    I bought the new Kona Unit in size medium. I like the fit and it feels great but now i'm having doubts should i have to buy large because the seatpost is all the way up to minimum insertion mark. I'm 5'9" and have 32" inseam.
    I totally understand--I'm 5'6'' with a 31'' inseam and often have to run 400mm seatposts on medium frames; otherwise, the seatpost will creak if it's close to the min insertion point. As a result I'm starting to get a collection of seatposts that are too short. And of course the trend now is to allow more clearance for the massive dropper posts. But I digress...

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: t_surfer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    29
    It really depends on how you ride, and what you want to ride, that determines if you should go with a larger frame or a smaller one. If you mainly cruise fire roads and a few single trails that are not too steep up or down, then a larger frame is better. If you manly ride fast downhills that are not steep (ie fire roads) then a larger and longer TT frame will be fine, too. If you like to jump in the bike park, and generally ride twisty trails, and if you like to throw the bike around, then a smaller size frame will be better.