Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    239

    17" Frame for 30" Inseem?

    Hi,

    I'm looking at a 17" 2002 Jamis Dakota XC frame with a 22.75" top tube. I'm 5'10 with a 30" inseem (i.e. short legs, long torso). Any idea if this frame would be a good fit? I'm currently on a 8-10 yr old 18" Giant AL/carbon bike (can't remember the name) that fits me pretty well. 20" is definetely too large based on past experience with an old Trek. I'm wondering if the top tube would be long enough among other things. Thanks.

  2. #2
    a dad
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,780
    i'm 5'9 with a 30" inseam and have ridden many 17" specialized bikes in the past, fit me very well...you can always get a longer stem or a thompson lay back seat post if the top tube is not long enough for your liking...
    BBZ

    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy - Benjamin Franklin

  3. #3
    JmZ
    JmZ is offline
    Reformed Lurker
    Reputation: JmZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,029

    Hard to tell...

    What's the effective top tube of the current bike? Compare it to get a good idea of how the Jamis will feel. Not a perfect example, but a good place to start.

    I've ridden everything from a 15" Jamis Dakar to my Current 18" Rocky Mountain.

    I'm 5'11". It really can depend on how the company built 'em and what parts are stuck on 'em. The bikes I seem to fit best on are normally labeled as 16 or 17" frames.

    My current Rocky is <i>almost</i> perfect and an improvement on the Jamis which was good, if just a little small.

    Good luck,

    JmZ

    Quote Originally Posted by goldsbar
    Hi,

    I'm looking at a 17" 2002 Jamis Dakota XC frame with a 22.75" top tube. I'm 5'10 with a 30" inseem (i.e. short legs, long torso). Any idea if this frame would be a good fit? I'm currently on a 8-10 yr old 18" Giant AL/carbon bike (can't remember the name) that fits me pretty well. 20" is definetely too large based on past experience with an old Trek. I'm wondering if the top tube would be long enough among other things. Thanks.
    JmZ

    From one flat land to another.

    Advocate as if your ride depends on it...

  4. #4
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,464
    Quote Originally Posted by goldsbar
    Hi,

    I'm looking at a 17" 2002 Jamis Dakota XC frame with a 22.75" top tube. I'm 5'10 with a 30" inseem (i.e. short legs, long torso). Any idea if this frame would be a good fit? I'm currently on a 8-10 yr old 18" Giant AL/carbon bike (can't remember the name) that fits me pretty well. 20" is definetely too large based on past experience with an old Trek. I'm wondering if the top tube would be long enough among other things. Thanks.
    Is your giant a CFM model. I had a small CFM1 back in the day. Those had a sloping top tube that help in the standover dept. I have a similar build to you (5'8" 31" true inseam) and I can usually ride a small 15" or medium 17" frame. You will most likely always need the 17" to get the longer top tube your long torso is going to require.

  5. #5
    jrm
    jrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jrm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,030

    jamis

    Quote Originally Posted by goldsbar
    Hi,

    I'm looking at a 17" 2002 Jamis Dakota XC frame with a 22.75" top tube. I'm 5'10 with a 30" inseem (i.e. short legs, long torso). Any idea if this frame would be a good fit? I'm currently on a 8-10 yr old 18" Giant AL/carbon bike (can't remember the name) that fits me pretty well. 20" is definetely too large based on past experience with an old Trek. I'm wondering if the top tube would be long enough among other things. Thanks.
    sizing is kinda weird in that being 5'8 with a 31.25" inseam (in riding shoes) the 17" was to small and the 19" was freak show to big.

    I'd look at other manufacturers that utilize more common sizing and go with a 18" frame with a 23" TT. With the 18" you may give up little if any standover but standover doesnt matter when your riding.

  6. #6
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,996

    I'm the same height as you

    Quote Originally Posted by goldsbar
    Hi,

    I'm looking at a 17" 2002 Jamis Dakota XC frame with a 22.75" top tube. I'm 5'10 with a 30" inseem (i.e. short legs, long torso). Any idea if this frame would be a good fit? I'm currently on a 8-10 yr old 18" Giant AL/carbon bike (can't remember the name) that fits me pretty well. 20" is definetely too large based on past experience with an old Trek. I'm wondering if the top tube would be long enough among other things. Thanks.
    with a long torso and short legs 30" or 31" inseem and look for around a 23" effective top tube, short stand over, 71 degree head angle and around 73 degree seat angle.
    The Dakota specs are solid and I am sure you or I would get used to and have no problem with the 17" dakota (with a 120mm stem) you are looking at.
    Are you getting it at JensonUSA.com ?

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wickerman1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,344
    I rode a 16" HUckler... being it was a freride bike it had a really long top tube ( 23"). I'm also built the same way... short legs long trunk. I just bought a new Rocky Mountain and the guy at the lbs pulled out a 21" frame and said this should fit you... I told him he was crazy and he made me stand over it, which I couldn't do. he was quite surprised. the 18.5 is perfect for me.
    I'm 6'1".

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    32
    I faced a similar dilemma recently. One important question: How are you measuring your inseam? By pants length, or actual (standing barefoot)?

    I wear 30" inseam pants, but my true inseam is 32.5". But like you, I'm am generally short legged, long torso-ed. I was trying to decide betwn a 17.5" and 19.5" within the Bianchi line (these measurements are to the top of the seat tube). Went with the 17.5, but center to center that bike's only 16.5", and now I need to extend the seat post waay high, 1.5 inches above the maximum height. So I've ordered the 19.5 and am selling the smaller bike.

    Anyway, good luck. It sucks being between sizes, is what I've learned ...

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    32
    Oh, and I'm 5' 11.5", FWIW. When I was considering Jamis, I was leaning toward the 19", which is also measured center to top. It's apparently only 18 center to center, which would've been perfect for me.

    You might also consider trying out the Wrench Science fitting tool. See
    http://www.wrenchscience.com/WS1/Sec...ing/Height.asp

Similar Threads

  1. What did my 88 Fat Chance sell for new?
    By mojo in forum Vintage, Retro, Classic
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-20-2005, 02:26 PM
  2. 5' 10" tall 165 lbs does a 17" frame sound to little?
    By JonBoy in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-21-2004, 03:26 PM
  3. 29er Spam: 17" Buzz Bomb frame
    By Mycle in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-30-2004, 09:28 PM
  4. Komodo 17" frame - Looking for one!
    By Rollin'in'Zona in forum Jamis
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-04-2004, 05:57 PM
  5. comparison of ProPedal, Float and ALPS on same frame
    By ccm in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-15-2004, 08:37 AM

Members who have read this thread: 0

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.