Results 1 to 50 of 50

Thread: Carve Sizing

  1. #1
    CS2
    CS2 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CS2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,699

    Carve Sizing

    I found an excellent deal on a Carve Comp. It's a 19" which is usually a size bigger than I use. Before I commit to look or buy how true to size do these run?
    A garage full of steel frames means happiness.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: millertm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    461
    That is a "large" frame. What size are you? I am 6'4" with a 38" inseam and I love my "XXL" or 23" frame. I would say get on it and see how it feels. I was riding a 19" 26er for my last bike but I got tired of super tall seat post and riser bars on a under sized frame. My son is 14y and I just bought him a 21" RH Comp and it fits him fine at 6'2".

    Mark
    2012 XXL Carve Expert

  3. #3
    CS2
    CS2 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CS2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,699
    No where near that tall. I'm about 5' 9" with longish, 32" inseam.
    A garage full of steel frames means happiness.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    347
    I'm 5'10" with a 31" inseam. The, um, boys are pretty much resting on the top tube on a size large, so I went with a size medium and a longer stem. No way I'd feel safe riding a size large.

    I could have gotten a sweet deal on a Stump Comp HT if I could have fit the large, but it would not have been safe on anything other than rail trails.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    223
    What top tube measurement do you prefer? My 17.5'' is a little large for me in standover height but when do you fall straight legged on level ground over the top tube? Don't get stuck on a bike that is too short in the top tube. If the carve geometry doesn't work for you in a size that makes sense, take a look at niner.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Randall in NC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by CS2 View Post
    No where near that tall. I'm about 5' 9" with longish, 32" inseam.
    I too have a 32" inseam and ride a medium Carve and a medium Niner Air9. The top tube lengths are within 4mm of each other but the Air9 has more standover clearance. The large frame from either company would not provide you with enough standover on uneven terrain. I know this from experience, my first Air9 was a great deal on a large frame

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mark in Baltimore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    153
    The 19" is too big, and I think you'll probably be too stretched out on it. My girlfriend has a 17.5 Carve and, at 5' 11.5", it's a good size for me.
    '12 S-Works Stumpjumper carbon HT
    '13 Specialized Carve Comp
    '94 S-Works M2

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    7
    Looking at getting a 2013 Carve Expert. Im about 5'10" and inseam of ~32.5"
    So it seems I between a Medium and Large.

    Spent some time at the LBS and they steered me towards a Large. New to the MTB geometry so not sure what I should be feeling. I currently have a Crosstrail Sport Disc in a large and threw some 2.2" tires on it last year. Obviously this bike will feel more relaxed.

    Just feel like I'm reaching forward on the Large Carve. Had the LBS throw me on a trainer and he confirmed I was in the correct geometry with 90 degree rule, etc.

    Anyone else have experience with being in between sizes? Advice with this bike in particular? Hard part is this will be my first real MTB.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mudhen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    185

    Carve Sizing

    5' 10" 30/31" inseam.

    Rode a HR Med for 2 years before buying a 2013 Carve. I went with Large, and I prefer the Large.

    But, I'm a trail rider on this bike, so no problems so far.

    Looking at a Camber, and will probably go Medium...

    mudhen
    "Lighten up Francis" Sgt. Hulka

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Randall in NC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    103
    At 5'10" with a 32" inseam, I too am a tweener on most Specialized mountain bikes. But the Carves longer top tube (TT=603mm) allows me to ride a Medium frame with a Thomson setback seatpost and a 90mm stem. I also ride a large 2013 Epic carbon comp (TT=615mm) with a setback seatpost and a 80mm stem. Each bike has proper standover clearance for my 32" inseam...

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    7
    Thanks. Rode some larges and still have enough clearance. May end up to small with a medium.
    Excited to get the bike. Stuck between the Expert and the Pro.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    7
    Went back to the same LBS. Rode a medium and felt more comfortable. Ended up with a decent free sizing since they were pitching me towards the large.
    Turns out the large was over and inch to long of a reach. Seems like a fitting would be worth it for anyone unsure.
    My medium Carve pro will be in next week.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Randall in NC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    103
    Nice! Once your new bike arrives, have the shop convert the wheels to tubless. This is a must on hardtails and will allow you to run lower pressure for max traction and bump compliance.

    When you are ready to upgrade (second to fit), start with the wheels. I dropped over a pound of rotational weight by upgrading to Stans wheels. My seatpost, saddle, and stem were changed out during my bike fit. Enjoy!!!

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    13
    I also have a sizing issue with the carve expert...

    Just purchased a 2013 carve expert last week in a size 17.5. It is my first 29'er, and I wasn't able to test one offroad before buying, so I had to settle with a trip around the block...

    I am having a little buyers remorse right now wondering whether I should have gone for the smaller size (15.5.)....?

    I am 175 cm (5'9") and have a relatively long torso/neck but somewhat short legs (31 or 32 inch inseam), which unfortunately means that my crotch rests slightly on the top tube when standing over the bike. On the other hand, with relatively short arms as well, I sort of appreciate that the larger size means not having to hunch over too much when riding. Most sizing guides I have tried online put me somewhere between a 16.5 and an 18.5 frame and the specialized sizing chart has me in the middle of the height range for the 17.5 frame (170-178 cm), so if that serves for measure, I should be allright.

    The guy in the shop said I could ride both small and medium but recommended the 17,5. After trying it it felt pretty good so I assumed the size was right and took it home. Upon arriving home with the bike I started to doubt whether it feels to big for me, and whether I should take it back and trade in for a smaller size... On the other hand, it might also just be the difference between my usual 26 and the 29'er that is playing tricks on me.

    Does a 15.5 sound too small for me? Hope you guys can help me! It kills me to think I might have gotten too large a bike!
    Last edited by DavidDK; 03-24-2013 at 08:48 AM.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    7
    For the money being spent, see if some LBS has a professional sizing. They talked me into a large and even ordered it in. I was still skeptical so had them do a sizing. Turned out I was right, Medium was correct.
    Fit gave me a cockpit length which te large was inches to long. Didn't want to be too stretched out.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mark in Baltimore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    153
    When in doubt, I always choose the smaller size. Before I bought the carbon S-Works HT, I was considering a carbon Epic. According to Specialized, I am in between sizes (5', 11.5" with a 34" inseam and long torso). When I called the Big S, the rep said to go with the large one, a recommendation that a local S-Works shop recommended, too. I measured the ETT lengths of my now-sold Trek Top Fuel, my old S-Works M2, my girlfriend's Carve, a medium Epic and a large Epic to make sure I was making a good choice.

    I "test rode" a large and medium Epic at a local school and could tell a difference in handling between both (the large handled terribly while the medium felt good). I did a true trail test of the large and absolutely hated how it handled. Not sure if it was too big for me and I wasn't putting enough weight over the front wheel.

    For the carbon HT, I am also a tweener and went with a medium (17.5" frame). I took my buddy's large carbon Specialized HT on a ride and knew that a medium was the right one for me. I have zero regrets with the medium.
    '12 S-Works Stumpjumper carbon HT
    '13 Specialized Carve Comp
    '94 S-Works M2

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,271
    Just curious folks on how high your posts are for climbing? If your post is near the max the bike is too small.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    13
    Thanks for the input!

    Just went to the Specialized Concept Store for a second opinion and they said that they would recommend a small for me.

    The difference between the two frames was actually smaller than one might think, but the guy in the store said that for more for casual riding he would normally say the medium was an option for me, and that in my case I could go with either. Since I plan on riding it quite agressively, however he told me he would recommend for the small. The funny thing is that Specialized recommends the medium to riders between 170 and 178 cm. Apparently, the guy said, this can be very misleading since leg/arm/torso length means a lot when fitting.

    Here are the specifics:

    For me the seatpost setting on the small bike is approx. one cm below the riveted max line which apparently is fine. This puts the top of the seat pretty much exactly on level with the top of the handlebars, i.e. a good (but agressive) riding position.

    For the medium bike, the seat is a lot lower, and the top of the seat is somewhat lower than the handlebars, which I was told would put too little weight on the front wheel when cornering leading to worse traction and slipping in turns.

    In terms of reach I thought the small was comfortable when riding, whereas the medium was somewhat stretched. This I assume is due to the fact that I have quite short arms.

    To me the deciding factor however, is that the standover clearance was good on the small bike and non-existant on the medium. For single track riding, the guy in the store told me that some clearance was important, since I would be compromising maneuverablity and in the event of a fall, I would be jeopardizing the crown jewels!

    Luckily the store I bought it in (not Specialized) said they would trade it for a 15.5 (small), although they (not surprisingly) said that although I could ride both, I was better off on the medium... Haha. Think I will trade it in tomorrow.

    Advice to others: rent the first 29'er you are about to buy and try it for a day before buying. The sizes can be misleading compared to 26 inch bikes...

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,271
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidDK View Post
    Thanks for the input!

    Just went to the Specialized Concept Store for a second opinion and they said that they would recommend a small for me.

    The difference between the two frames was actually smaller than one might think, but the guy in the store said that for more for casual riding he would normally say the medium was an option for me, and that in my case I could go with either. Since I plan on riding it quite agressively, however he told me he would recommend for the small. The funny thing is that Specialized recommends the medium to riders between 170 and 178 cm. Apparently, the guy said, this can be very misleading since leg/arm/torso length means a lot when fitting.

    Here are the specifics:

    For me the seatpost setting on the small bike is approx. one cm below the riveted max line which apparently is fine. This puts the top of the seat pretty much exactly on level with the top of the handlebars, i.e. a good (but agressive) riding position.

    For the medium bike, the seat is a lot lower, and the top of the seat is somewhat lower than the handlebars, which I was told would put too little weight on the front wheel when cornering leading to worse traction and slipping in turns.

    In terms of reach I thought the small was comfortable when riding, whereas the medium was somewhat stretched. This I assume is due to the fact that I have quite short arms.

    To me the deciding factor however, is that the standover clearance was good on the small bike and non-existant on the medium. For single track riding, the guy in the store told me that some clearance was important, since I would be compromising maneuverablity and in the event of a fall, I would be jeopardizing the crown jewels!

    Luckily the store I bought it in (not Specialized) said they would trade it for a 15.5 (small), although they (not surprisingly) said that although I could ride both, I was better off on the medium... Haha. Think I will trade it in tomorrow.

    Advice to others: rent the first 29'er you are about to buy and try it for a day before buying. The sizes can be misleading compared to 26 inch bikes...
    Dam that is a super high seatpost if you go with the small frame. Have the shop fit you on a medium with a smaller stem and zero setback seatpost before you make the purchase. See if they have a demo bike in both size you can take on the trail, before purchasing. You will regret the smaller frame in time.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    13
    Oops, double post, see edit below..

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by stumpynerd View Post
    Dam that is a super high seatpost if you go with the small frame. Have the shop fit you on a medium with a smaller stem and zero setback seatpost before you make the purchase. See if they have a demo bike in both size you can take on the trail, before purchasing. You will regret the smaller frame in time.

    What about the standover clearance?

    I'm thinking that I could also go with a larger/higher stem for the small bike to make the riding position a bit less agressive. I still am lower than the recommended max for the seatpost, so that part should not be an issue as long as my positioning is not too steep...

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,271
    The only way to tell a bike is right for you is to demo one. Before you lay down several g's on a bike ask the shop for a demo bike. Test it on your local trail make sure its the right size then go for the purchase. If your post is near the max for climbing then the frame is too small. As for standover height how many inches of clearance do you have between the frame and your nads for the medium?

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by stumpynerd View Post
    The only way to tell a bike is right for you is to demo one. Before you lay down several g's on a bike ask the shop for a demo bike. Test it on your local trail make sure its the right size then go for the purchase. If your post is near the max for climbing then the frame is too small. As for standover height how many inches of clearance do you have between the frame and your nads for the medium?
    I agree, that would be the ideal scenario. I can ask them for that option tomorrow, and see if they'll let me (I would have to return the bike and come back for repurchase I guess).

    With regards to the seatpost, the guy in the Specialized store said the seatpost position looked too low on the medium. On the smaller frame the seatpost was high as you say, but it was still pretty safely in the intended range. The way I see it, the smaller frame puts me further over the front wheel giving me more leverage and power when standing up on climbs right..?

    As far as clearance there is basically none on the medium. I am not sitting on the top tube, but my nuts are touching it even when I am standing all the way to the back and with my legs completely straight.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,271
    If there is no stand over clearance, a small frame would be better. But make sure to demo both sizes on the trail. You will sleep better after the know you purchased the right size

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by stumpynerd View Post
    If there is no stand over clearance, a small frame would be better. But make sure to demo both sizes on the trail. You will sleep better after the know you purchased the right size
    Most def.! I am mostly worried about the standover clearance.

    I think I will have struck a good riding position on the small bike with a longer stem to make the reach and torso angle just right, while being adequately positioned over the front wheel. This would balance out some comfort with performance.

    But even with the 15.5 bike, I think you're right it would be best to put it to a real test before making up my mind!

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,271
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidDK View Post
    Most def.! I am mostly worried about the standover clearance.

    I think I will have struck a good riding position on the small bike with a longer stem to make the reach and torso angle just right, while being adequately positioned over the front wheel. This would balance out some comfort with performance.

    But even with the 15.5 bike, I think you're right it would be best to put it to a real test before making up my mind!
    I would go for the carve pro 29. It has a fox fork and slightly better components than the expert and is only $200 more.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by stumpynerd View Post
    I would go for the carve pro 29. It has a fox fork and slightly better components than the expert and is only $200 more.
    Valid point, but I was already stretching the budget on the carve expert on sale... Besides, I really like the shiny/matte black finish on the expert! It still has pretty solid components and a Reba fork on the European version that they sell here...

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    7
    I ended up stretching my budget to get the Pro. Fox fork felt good. Shifters felt a little better and I liked the idea behind the Shadow Plus rear with lockout.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    8
    Thinking of picking up a Carve Pro. Not sure if I should go with a small or medium. From reading this thread, it would seem a small might be best. I hope to ride both next week.

    5'8" with 30 inch pants inseam, 32 inch true inseam. Looks like a medium would give me about a half inch of standover, while a small would give me two inches.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    13
    As you suggest, I would also try to rent them before buying. I just borrowed and rode a medium on trails all day yesterday, and it felt right, so I think I will end up sticking with it rather than downsizing.


    Standover clearance on the carve 17.5 is 796 mm, which would give you about two inches of standover clearance with bike shoes on. You can try measuring it by stacking however many inches of books you can get under the wheels while still being able to stand over the bike.

    I don't have particularly long arms, so I would guess that your key measurements roughly correspond to mine, and basically, for people our size, it comes down to preference. I am 5'9" (175 cm) with a 32 inch (81.5 cm) inseam, so with bike shoes and tight shorts I just manage to get approx two inches of clearance with the bike lifted up against my groin. This isn't a lot, but I think I would rather have a frame that fits my body as intended and gives me a comfortable and safe ride, than have a whole lot of clearance. Correct positioning while riding also means avoiding too much pressure on the palms of your hands, and keeps your back from being too hunched over. And if I ever crash with the jewels on the top tube, there it still the travel of the air fork to take the worst hit, and the very high likelyhood of the bike being pushed at angle by my hands before my groin enters the danger zone.

    If you prefer a more racy position over comfort, really do some serious maneuvering at high speeds, don't mind flying over the handlebars a little more often, and need more pressure on your front wheel for handling sharp turns, you might consider the small, but I would def. try it first.

    If you want to get really anal about your general positioning, you can also start to look at different seatpost angles and stem lenghts to up or down-size your bike.
    Last edited by DavidDK; 04-10-2013 at 10:40 AM.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    13
    Btw; the whole standover clearance thing is a pretty debated issue:

    The Paceline Forum - MTB Standover/Clearance and customer satisfaction...

    If you have an inch or two of clearance under the wheels when pulling the bike upward (with bike shoes on), I would think you were ok. But again, its a pros and cons thing...

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mark in Baltimore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    153
    I'm at 9" with the Carve and 8.5" with the Stumpjumper, both measured from the top of the seat tube to the seat rail. Plenty of post left for both bikes.
    '12 S-Works Stumpjumper carbon HT
    '13 Specialized Carve Comp
    '94 S-Works M2

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by mcwenzel View Post
    Thinking of picking up a Carve Pro. Not sure if I should go with a small or medium. From reading this thread, it would seem a small might be best. I hope to ride both next week.

    5'8" with 30 inch pants inseam, 32 inch true inseam. Looks like a medium would give me about a half inch of standover, while a small would give me two inches.
    Another note on the 15.5 vs. 17.5 Carve debate:

    Before making my final call on the whether to go for a medium or a small, I went for another spin at my local bike shop on 2 rockhoppers (one 15.5 and one 17.5), taking both for a good 20 min trip in the woods on a few steep climbs and descents.

    I can say for sure that the small felt better than the medium, and because a lot of people have been saying I should be on a medium (at 5í9Ē and with a 32 inch inseam) I went home and did my measurements for the sizing chart at competitivecyclist.com (see link and numbers below) to find out why a 15.5 bike feels considerably better to me.

    It turns out that my recommended effective top tube length is from 56.6 cm Ė 58.9 cm. Effective top tube measuments on the carve are 57.6 cm for the small and 60.3 cm for the medium, i.e. the top tube is at least half an inch too long for me on the medium.

    As for standover clearance, I have a bit more much clearance on the small (76 cm) than recommended for me (78-79.5), but I think I will prioritize effective top tube length and overall gut feel over that. I still have to make the saddle to handle measurement before I decide, but unless this measurement is completely off my recommendations, I will end up going for the small. Stem length on the carve is only 7,5 cm, and getting a stem that is a lot smaller than this would be bordering on the ridiculous... I donít even know if these exist..

    I must have a super long neck, short arms, a short torso and a long inseam, which is probably the reason why I feel I donít have enough reach on the medium. Had there been a 16.5Ē carve I it would have been the perfect size for me, but Iíd much rather have a bike thatís a tad too small than a tad to big...

    Here are my measurements and my recommended bike fit if you want to compare before you start sizing up and trying out.

    Inseam: 82 cm
    Trunk: 63 cm
    Forearm: 35 cm
    Arm: 58 cm
    Thigh: 60.5 cm
    Lower leg: 53.5 cm
    Sternal notch: 145 cm
    Total body height: 175 cm

    Standover height range: 30.7-31.3 inches
    Virtual/effective top tube length: 22.3-23.2 inches
    Stem length: 6.7-10.8 cm
    Saddle-Handlebar: 50.1-53.6 cm

    Fit Calculator - Competitive Cyclist

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    17
    it's funny to see all these bikes with a foot of setback post showing and 90+mm stems to "make the bike fit better"......

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidDK View Post
    Another note on the 15.5 vs. 17.5 Carve debate:

    Before making my final call on the whether to go for a medium or a small, I went for another spin at my local bike shop on 2 rockhoppers (one 15.5 and one 17.5), taking both for a good 20 min trip in the woods on a few steep climbs and descents.

    I can say for sure that the small felt better than the medium, and because a lot of people have been saying I should be on a medium (at 5í9Ē and with a 32 inch inseam) I went home and did my measurements for the sizing chart at competitivecyclist.com (see link and numbers below) to find out why a 15.5 bike feels considerably better to me.

    It turns out that my recommended effective top tube length is from 56.6 cm Ė 58.9 cm. Effective top tube measuments on the carve are 57.6 cm for the small and 60.3 cm for the medium, i.e. the top tube is at least half an inch too long for me on the medium.

    As for standover clearance, I have a bit more much clearance on the small (76 cm) than recommended for me (78-79.5), but I think I will prioritize effective top tube length and overall gut feel over that. I still have to make the saddle to handle measurement before I decide, but unless this measurement is completely off my recommendations, I will end up going for the small. Stem length on the carve is only 7,5 cm, and getting a stem that is a lot smaller than this would be bordering on the ridiculous... I donít even know if these exist..

    I must have a super long neck, short arms, a short torso and a long inseam, which is probably the reason why I feel I donít have enough reach on the medium. Had there been a 16.5Ē carve I it would have been the perfect size for me, but Iíd much rather have a bike thatís a tad too small than a tad to big...

    Here are my measurements and my recommended bike fit if you want to compare before you start sizing up and trying out.

    Inseam: 82 cm
    Trunk: 63 cm
    Forearm: 35 cm
    Arm: 58 cm
    Thigh: 60.5 cm
    Lower leg: 53.5 cm
    Sternal notch: 145 cm
    Total body height: 175 cm

    Standover height range: 30.7-31.3 inches
    Virtual/effective top tube length: 22.3-23.2 inches
    Stem length: 6.7-10.8 cm
    Saddle-Handlebar: 50.1-53.6 cm

    Fit Calculator - Competitive Cyclist
    I did the Comp Cyclist measurements and came out as follows:


    Your Measurements
    Gender M
    Inseam 81.7 cm
    Trunk 61.4 cm
    Forearm 33 cm
    Arm 61.7 cm
    Thigh 60.7 cm
    Lower Leg 53.1 cm
    Sternal Notch 141 cm
    Total Body Height 171.9 cm


    Standover height range: 30.6-31.2 inches
    Virtual/effective top tube length: 22.5-22.9
    Stem length: 9.2-10.8 cm
    Saddle-Handlebar: 51.4-53.0 cm

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    13
    Looks like you have pretty much the same key measurements as me. My torso is a little longer and my neck a lot longer than yours, but you have at least an inch extra arm length. For carve, I would probably go with the 15.5 with a slightly longer stem if I were you, but as I said before, I would also take them both for a good ride and see how they feel. A lot of personal preference comes into play, since you in terms of standover could potentially also fit on the 17.5 with a super short stem.

    You could also consider a brand with a 16.5 frame like this one for example. They are closer to fitting our key measurements:

    Canyon | Mountainbikes | Yellowstone AL 29 6.9


    Quote Originally Posted by mcwenzel View Post
    I did the Comp Cyclist measurements and came out as follows:


    Your Measurements
    Gender M
    Inseam 81.7 cm
    Trunk 61.4 cm
    Forearm 33 cm
    Arm 61.7 cm
    Thigh 60.7 cm
    Lower Leg 53.1 cm
    Sternal Notch 141 cm
    Total Body Height 171.9 cm


    Standover height range: 30.6-31.2 inches
    Virtual/effective top tube length: 22.5-22.9
    Stem length: 9.2-10.8 cm
    Saddle-Handlebar: 51.4-53.0 cm

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    8
    Tried both a 15.5 and 17.5. No real trail riding, just some roots and dirt near the shop. Felt cramped on the 15.5. Also had to have the seatpost way up on the 15.5.

    Interestingly I tried a 17.5 Trek X-Caliber right after (wanted to try the Superfly but they did not have my size) and I felt more stretched out on the Trek

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    13
    Seatpost way up is ok. Take this guy for example, he's 5'8 and knows what he is doing... He has almost a foot of seatpost showing.

    Giant Photos

    I guess if you feel cramped on the 15.5 you should go with the bigger size. I felt too stretched out on the 17.5 so it's probably just a matter of preference and what you're used to. We could both go with either size and still have a pretty good fit.

  39. #39
    dying hurts.
    Reputation: johnny the boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    579
    todd wells also knows what he's doing:


    as does ned overend:

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RS VR6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,977
    I'm 5'8" and tried the small and it felt cramped with the 75mm stem. The medium felt just right.

    if I was racing XC...small is the size I would have went with. I'd run a 100mm stem with narrower bars...but I don't race.

    The small will also have a lower front end...be aware of that.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    13
    Carve Sizing-1347581614053-639aynj04x9i-670-75.jpgCarve Sizing-1344780239295-254p8p4i7uu6-670-75.jpg

    Talk about a cramped cockpit and a high seatpost...
    Last edited by DavidDK; 04-28-2013 at 03:20 AM.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RS VR6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,977
    Those are pics of Pro bikes with long stems set up for XC racing. How many in here are factory Pros?

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Randall in NC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    103
    Below is my personal fit guide that has served me well for the past six bikes.

    -XC Stand-over: 1"-2" on tech trails and 1" on groomed trails
    -Saddle position (horizontal/vertical): I use Competitive Cyclist Fit Calculator to define this number using my upper/lower leg lengths and inseam. My saddle nose is 40-50mm behind BB and height is 73mm.
    -Stem Length: Along with stem angle and handlebar width, this determines how a bike handles and is based on personal preference. I like how a 90mm stem feels on the tech trails I ride and I start with a zero degree rise with a 680mm bar. The stem angle changes with a frame's stack height.
    -Top Tube Length (Effective): Once again I use Competitive Cyclist Fit Calculator and combine the suggested TT and Stem length for XC riding (697mm). I then subtract my preferred 90mm stem length and target that value as my TT length (697-90=607mm). I am willing to install a smaller stem in order to hit my target TT+stem length but I never go over a 90mm length (personal preference). I believe "Reach" is a better dimension to work with since a frame with a relaxed seat tube angle can have a longer TT but feel cramped once the saddle is moved forward into an efficient peddling position.

    My Competitive Cyclist Fit TT+Stem target = 697mm
    My Carve SL medium: 603+90=693mm
    My Carbon Epic large: 615+80=695mm

    I hope this is helpful to someone...

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    8
    Same problem as the others here. I'm between sizes, 17.5 & 19". I tested both and the 17.5 felt better (nimbler like my old 26"), but the stock seat post (350mm) was out about 1" beyond its max. Does that unequivocally make the frame too small, or just mean I have long legs and short torso (I'm 5'11" and wear 32" inseam pants).

    Help!

  45. #45
    Trail Rider
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,418
    I'd say.... get a longer seatpost.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mark in Baltimore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by jbierling View Post
    Same problem as the others here. I'm between sizes, 17.5 & 19". I tested both and the 17.5 felt better (nimbler like my old 26"), but the stock seat post (350mm) was out about 1" beyond its max. Does that unequivocally make the frame too small, or just mean I have long legs and short torso (I'm 5'11" and wear 32" inseam pants).

    Help!
    Definitely get a longer seatpost. I'm a touch taller than you with a longer torso, and I'm on a 17.5" Stumpy. I have to run a 400mm post, but it works just fine (of course). Like you, a 350mm post is too short for me.
    '12 S-Works Stumpjumper carbon HT
    '13 Specialized Carve Comp
    '94 S-Works M2

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    8
    Thanks for the responses. Longer seatpost it is.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Randall in NC View Post
    Below is my personal fit guide that has served me well for the past six bikes.

    -XC Stand-over: 1"-2" on tech trails and 1" on groomed trails
    -Saddle position (horizontal/vertical): I use Competitive Cyclist Fit Calculator to define this number using my upper/lower leg lengths and inseam. My saddle nose is 40-50mm behind BB and height is 73mm.
    -Stem Length: Along with stem angle and handlebar width, this determines how a bike handles and is based on personal preference. I like how a 90mm stem feels on the tech trails I ride and I start with a zero degree rise with a 680mm bar. The stem angle changes with a frame's stack height.
    -Top Tube Length (Effective): Once again I use Competitive Cyclist Fit Calculator and combine the suggested TT and Stem length for XC riding (697mm). I then subtract my preferred 90mm stem length and target that value as my TT length (697-90=607mm). I am willing to install a smaller stem in order to hit my target TT+stem length but I never go over a 90mm length (personal preference). I believe "Reach" is a better dimension to work with since a frame with a relaxed seat tube angle can have a longer TT but feel cramped once the saddle is moved forward into an efficient peddling position.

    My Competitive Cyclist Fit TT+Stem target = 697mm
    My Carve SL medium: 603+90=693mm
    My Carbon Epic large: 615+80=695mm

    I hope this is helpful to someone...
    The above makes good sense to me. my competitive cyclist figures come out at:
    TT+Stem target = 709 (XC fit), 684 (mountain fit)
    i'm looking at a Carve expert which has 603+75= 678

    by using a 90mm Stem this will increase to 693.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rjg5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    43
    I am 6"2" with 33.5 inseam. I went with the L for standover. Also looked at Niner and the specs were very, very close and they recommend L. Previously rode a 26" camber L. I am experiencing lower back discomfort now on the Carve. I realize some may be my 49 y.o. body riding hardtail vs. full sus but I'm wondering if the frame is just a little too small.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: beshannon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    249
    I tired one last year, and was not happy with it or my lbs.

    I am 6'1" 32" inseam and was on a large with no top tube clearance. I was told it was right a foolishly believed them. I returned the bike 10 days later after falling twice.

    It felt huge, like I was a comic book character on some oversized toy.

    I was anxious to start riding and exercising and it was my fault for being talked into the bike. Lesson learned, test ride everything, question everything and take your time.

    That is my new mantra.

Posting Permissions

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