Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    CS2
    CS2 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CS2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,297

    X Caliber Sizing

    Any X Caliber riders know how true Trek's sizing is? Usually I take a 17" - 18". But, I can get a great deal on a 15.5". I'm thinking it might be too small.
    1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1992 Stumpjumpers. 1995 Waterford 1200, 1999 Waterford RSE, plus a garage full of steel frames.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,962
    I would say a 19" Trek would be your size.They come up small on sizing..

  3. #3
    Hooked
    Reputation: kimikaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    171
    How tall are you? We have a 17.5" 2011 Trek Paragon, and a 17.5" 2011 Trek X-Cal (WSD which has exactly the same as geometry as the Paragon). I'm 5'8", hubby is 5'10". The 17.5 size is great for either of us. I have ridden a 15.5 (2012model) and felt cramped a bit. Maybe more than a bit.

    Can you ride the bikes to compare?
    My blog - this, that, travel, garden, bikes, fitness, family, whatever

    Instagram, Twitter you'll find me as beerbikegirl

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by norcosam View Post
    I would say a 19" Trek would be your size.They come up small on sizing..
    +1

    I'm just under 5'6" and recently rode a 15.5" X-Caliber. (I typically ride a small (15-16") mountain bike and currently ride a 15" Fantom 29er). The Trek felt immediately too small with the stock 75mm stem. I traded to a 100mm stem and the bike still felt small; primarily regarding the reach. That could have something to do with the G2 geo that brings your hands in a bit. I also had to flip the stem and slam it onto the headtube to get close the position I have on my Fantom. I liked the quick and stable handling of the bike, but I just couldn't get comfortable as I felt too compact. Keep in mind however that I'm primarily a road rider and prefer more of a stretched out ride. Hope that helps.

  5. #5
    CS2
    CS2 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CS2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,297
    I've tried the 19" and it came very, and I mean very, close to the jewels. That's surprising as I have a 32.5" inseam and can usually straddle a bike technically too big for me. Do all Treks measure the same for their respective size? The 19" I tried wasn't an X Caliber. The dealer said all 19" Treks should have the same standover.
    1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1992 Stumpjumpers. 1995 Waterford 1200, 1999 Waterford RSE, plus a garage full of steel frames.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by CS2 View Post
    I've tried the 19" and it came very, and I mean very, close to the jewels. That's surprising as I have a 32.5" inseam and can usually straddle a bike technically too big for me. Do all Treks measure the same for their respective size? The 19" I tried wasn't an X Caliber. The dealer said all 19" Treks should have the same standover.
    All of the Gary Fisher line of Trek 29ers have the same geometry.

  7. #7
    CS2
    CS2 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CS2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,297
    Quote Originally Posted by ncmtnbiker1 View Post
    All of the Gary Fisher line of Trek 29ers have the same geometry.
    Thanks, so a 19" will probably fit the same no matter what model.
    1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1992 Stumpjumpers. 1995 Waterford 1200, 1999 Waterford RSE, plus a garage full of steel frames.

Posting Permissions

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