29er frame size???- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    21

    29er frame size???

    I'm about to order up a fisher hifi deluxe and want to make sure frame size is right. I'm 5'11", 32/33" inseam, 170 lbs....average build everywhere else. I'm coming off or a HT and every other HT I've ridden has been 19. 19 never felt too big/small so question is does that translate directly over into the 29er or are people suggesting to go a size down? I'm assuming that frame size would stay the same but I'm just asking.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kubikeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    891
    I went through the same dilemma last year. You have to look at the Top Tube length. Due to 29er geometry, the top tube is usually slightly longer than the comparable size of a 26er.

    I.E.
    I ride a medium Diamondback Mission with a 17 inch seat tube and 23 inch top tube. But my Niner E.M.D. is a small with a 15.5 inch seat tube and a 23.1 top tube.

    The key is you don't want to be too stretched out in the saddle. You can always add an extra inch with a seatpost, but if the frame is too long you could be in trouble. So in general, it's usually safer to drop down a size when going from a 26" to 29" bike. But double check geometry numbers to compare top tubes.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    21
    gotcha....yea makes total sense. I was more worried about the 17.5" frame being too small but your saying the bigger concern is the 19" frame stretching me out too much...longer stems and seatpost mod make sense making up if necessary. Does the top tube angle matter (HT will be less angled) or just the length? I'll double check everything... thanks so much!!!!

  4. #4
    Naturally Organic
    Reputation: Deuce9er's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,245
    5'10" 170# 31" inseam. The 19" GF HiFi fit nicely IMO. Stems can always be shortened to tighten up the cockpit. I personally would go to an 80 or 90mm stem for XC riding, handling & responsiveness. YMMV.

    Edit: The cockpit with the shorter stem would have setback on the seatpost...again, YMMV.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kubikeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    891
    Originally Poster by mole7374
    gotcha....yea makes total sense. I was more worried about the 17.5" frame being too small but your saying the bigger concern is the 19" frame stretching me out too much...longer stems and seatpost mod make sense making up if necessary. Does the top tube angle matter (HT will be less angled) or just the length? I'll double check everything... thanks so much!!!!
    I just checked the Trek website to look at geometry. The Medium Fisher has a 23.5' top tube and a 29.5' standover height. The large has a 24.25' top tube and 31' standover. So I agree with Deuce9er that 3/4' could be taken in with a shorter stem, 70mm over 100mm. However, the 31' standover height could be a little uncomfortable since you said your inseam is 32/33". I would definitely go ride the two sizes before you buy.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    21
    Thanks guys...good info. I just got off the phone with my buddy who owns a shop (and sells trek..so I'll buy from him) and he's telling me to go 17.5 and not 19. He's saying with the geometry being so close between the bikes and me being on the cusp of both, that it's better to go down with the 9er. Problem on riding them is that nobody has anything to ride...nobody...nothing in stock and all dealers are just taking orders now. Sucks... I've always been on 19 HT's so I'm a bit nervous but my buddy assured me 17.5 is where I should be. He's like 6'2" and said that with the 9er people his size are right on with the 19's but 6' and under he thinks it's safer to drop down so the bike doesn't feel like too much. He's sold me every bike I've ever owned so now I'm obviously more confused b/c I trust him b/c he knows me...however I know what I've ridden and hate to deviate!

  7. #7
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,166
    The "ride a size down on a 29er" philosophy is nothing new. Neither is its counter argument - "it's the top tube length, stupid" - which I think puts too much emphasis on literal fit, and ignores how the bike will ride. 29ers have bigger wheels and typically have steep seat tubes and long chainstays (as does the HiFi), causing a longer wheelbase and a much longer bike. So if between sizes, I think hedging downward is usually the safer bet.

    I think the other main factor is the type of riding/trails you plan to do most: longer bikes rock for long/fast trails, but I prefer smaller bikes for more technical trails, especially slow tight stuff. I've had two 29ers that were a bit big for me, and they felt great when blasting through a fast trail, but were a drag when things got tight and harry.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    21
    Ryder1 great perspective...thanks and I think that's spot on with my thinking. The hifi geometry is so freekin close between the 19 and 17.5 that I think going down is what I'm gonna do. Stand over is 31" vs 29.6 and seat tube is 24.3 vs 23.5... and lastly wheelbase is 44.8 vs 44. Other than that everything else is a moot point b/c it's so close. The way I'm looking at it, since they are so close, the smaller size can always be made up for if necessary and I'll never notice...however the longer I can never shrink metal! And to your point...I'm a technical single track guy, who loves the occasional blasting downhill, but tight single track is my game...
    I'm totally thinking 17.5.... And more importantly.... my buddy is ROYALLY hooking me up on an 11' hifi plus...he gave me pricing and it's sick.

  9. #9
    Trail Tire TV on blogger
    Reputation: thomllama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    4,237
    yaa,, I'd say go a size smaller, I use a 17 in 26 bike but my voodoo 16 feels a tad big, (though I actually like it better ) my 26 bike feels like a toy now
    Going to try and bring Trail Tire TV back. go take a look... http://trailtiretv.blogspot.com/

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    21
    thanks guys....I'm getting the sense that more people are sizing down than up which is what my gut is telling me to do. My buddy was all over me saying it's the right thing to do, although I had another LBS tell me 19...however I have to lead towards my buddy since he's sold me every steer I've ever owned. Since the geometry is so close on these things I'm not getting why anyone would risk sizing up with it's easy to adjust....especially in my case where I'm a big single track rider and sizing up could be more negative than positive in that terrain.

  11. #11
    Plays with tools
    Reputation: customfab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,606
    the fit is the fit, doesn't matter what you are buying, oh and stan dover is over rated

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10,035
    Quote Originally Posted by mole7374
    thanks guys....I'm getting the sense that more people are sizing down than up which is what my gut is telling me to do. My buddy was all over me saying it's the right thing to do, although I had another LBS tell me 19...however I have to lead towards my buddy since he's sold me every steer I've ever owned. Since the geometry is so close on these things I'm not getting why anyone would risk sizing up with it's easy to adjust....especially in my case where I'm a big single track rider and sizing up could be more negative than positive in that terrain.
    don't "size up" or "size down"... just go test ride them then decide. Most brands actually keep their sizing very similar between equivalent 26" and 29er bikes. There is usually more variation in sizing between 29ers from different brands than there is between bikes from the same brand but with different size wheels

  13. #13
    Naturally Organic
    Reputation: Deuce9er's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,245

    Standover & Stock...

    Quote Originally Posted by mole7374
    Thanks guys...good info. I just got off the phone with my buddy who owns a shop (and sells trek..so I'll buy from him) and he's telling me to go 17.5 and not 19. He's saying with the geometry being so close between the bikes and me being on the cusp of both, that it's better to go down with the 9er. Problem on riding them is that nobody has anything to ride...nobody...nothing in stock and all dealers are just taking orders now. Sucks... I've always been on 19 HT's so I'm a bit nervous but my buddy assured me 17.5 is where I should be. He's like 6'2" and said that with the 9er people his size are right on with the 19's but 6' and under he thinks it's safer to drop down so the bike doesn't feel like too much. He's sold me every bike I've ever owned so now I'm obviously more confused b/c I trust him b/c he knows me...however I know what I've ridden and hate to deviate!
    Trek builds up sooo many bikes. We have a Trek Superstore here that has several 2010 GF...From what I remember, Bergen County has lots of Trek dealers. I know you want to go with your buddy, and I agree with you, but this is not a custom bike. There is no reason to order without trying. It's not like Trek doesn't spec them and build them to stock. I could understand if it was a frame only bike...and you were picking and choosing components. Anyway, my suggestion is to find a GF HiFi or Superfly100 from anywhere and test ride. Make your decision & buy from your buddy. When I lived in Wyckoff (why cough when you can sneeze? Here today gone to Mahwah...), I chose between Trek & C'Dale (at the time I chose the Big C). YMMV...

    As for the standover, IMO, the 19" has more ESO (Effective Stand Over). With the setback seatpost, the longer top tube allows you to stand over lower than the middle of the TT. With the 17.5" frame design, the saddle pushes you forward and that is when I got into clearance issues...YMMV.

  14. #14
    Naturally Organic
    Reputation: Deuce9er's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,245
    Last bit of input and then I am done. Seatpost...with the 19", I had 190mm of exposed post. Add the additional 1.5" for ST and 1-2" longer inseam, and there could be ~280mm exposed post (an issue for some, not for others)...YMMV.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mitzikatzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,808
    Quote Originally Posted by mole7374
    Thanks guys...good info. I just got off the phone with my buddy who owns a shop (and sells trek..so I'll buy from him) and he's telling me to go 17.5 and not 19. He's saying with the geometry being so close between the bikes and me being on the cusp of both, that it's better to go down with the 9er. Problem on riding them is that nobody has anything to ride...nobody...nothing in stock and all dealers are just taking orders now. Sucks... I've always been on 19 HT's so I'm a bit nervous but my buddy assured me 17.5 is where I should be. He's like 6'2" and said that with the 9er people his size are right on with the 19's but 6' and under he thinks it's safer to drop down so the bike doesn't feel like too much. He's sold me every bike I've ever owned so now I'm obviously more confused b/c I trust him b/c he knows me...however I know what I've ridden and hate to deviate!
    Some thing to note when comparing from what I have seen is 26er are often measured centre to centre (centre of BB to centre of top tube) and 29ers are measured centre to top of seat tube.

    Also because of the larger wheels of a 29er the top tube is higher for the same sized frame. The numbers on my 19 inch c to c 26er and my 19 inch c to t (or 17 c to c) are about the same.

    As always top tube length is often the most important factor but I do like room for me above the top tube.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mitzikatzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,808
    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce9er
    Last bit of input and then I am done. Seatpost...with the 19", I had 190mm of exposed post. Add the additional 1.5" for ST and 1-2" longer inseam, and there could be ~280mm exposed post (an issue for some, not for others)...YMMV.
    A 410mm Thomson. Problem Solved

  17. #17
    Naturally Organic
    Reputation: Deuce9er's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,245

    Flex

    Quote Originally Posted by mitzikatzi
    A 410mm Thomson. Problem Solved
    I know there are long seatposts. I was refering to the flex of having more exposed. For some not an issue...he could go with a RASE Black Mamba with 9" of travel...YMMV.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mitzikatzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,808
    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce9er
    I know there are long seatposts. I was refering to the flex of having more exposed. For some not an issue...he could go with a RASE Black Mamba with 9" of travel...YMMV.
    I have about 260mm of post exposed plus the clamp head length. My post is 26.8mm and I don't feel it flexing. I guess I am one of those for who it is not an issue. Part of the reason I like the "smaller" frames is to have a longer seat post so my seat is higher than my bars. Having that much post exposed the Thomson gives me peace of mind.

  19. #19
    Naturally Organic
    Reputation: Deuce9er's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by mitzikatzi
    I have about 260mm of post exposed plus the clamp head length. My post is 26.8mm and I don't feel it flexing. I guess I am one of those for who it is not an issue. Part of the reason I like the "smaller" frames is to have a longer seat post so my seat is higher than my bars. Having that much post exposed the Thomson gives me peace of mind.
    +1 Thomson

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4
    get the 19". The HIFI's feel short. if you look at a picture of one, the seat tube is forward of the bottom bracket.. If you ride a 19" Fisher hardtail, and then ride a 19" HIFI, the HIFI will feel smaller.

Members who have read this thread: 1

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.