Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: XTC Sizing

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gcc0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    91

    XTC Sizing

    I'm wondering if I could get some advice on Giant sizing. I'm trying to figure out if the XTC 17" frame is too small for me, being that I am 5'10". I have another bike that is 19" and it rides a bit better (at least it feels that way). Is it all mental or is the 17" XTC too small for me?

    Any input appreciated....thanks.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by gcc0
    I'm wondering if I could get some advice on Giant sizing. I'm trying to figure out if the XTC 17" frame is too small for me, being that I am 5'10". I have another bike that is 19" and it rides a bit better (at least it feels that way). Is it all mental or is the 17" XTC too small for me?

    Any input appreciated....thanks.
    Hey -- I might be able to help; I have a slightly more extreme version of the same problem. I'm just a shade under 5'9", but proportioned very long in the leg/arm for my height (short torso). Currently ride a 19, but first had a 17 for two years. My take: provided you've got standover clearance, sizing by effective top tube is even more important with Giant than some others. Giant's sizing is a little odd, in that a 17 has an actual center-center seat tube of about 14.25", the 19 about 16.25, with 57.5 and 59 cm. top tube respectively. In other words, given the nominal sizing, the 17/19 Giants are pretty compact. Like me, you could probably ride both, but I've found the 19 a more 'balanced' ride overall, if not quite as flickable as the 17; I suspect the 19 would be an even better fit for you. I wish they made an 18 for me!

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gcc0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by iggy giant
    Hey -- I might be able to help; I have a slightly more extreme version of the same problem. I'm just a shade under 5'9", but proportioned very long in the leg/arm for my height (short torso). Currently ride a 19, but first had a 17 for two years. My take: provided you've got standover clearance, sizing by effective top tube is even more important with Giant than some others. Giant's sizing is a little odd, in that a 17 has an actual center-center seat tube of about 14.25", the 19 about 16.25, with 57.5 and 59 cm. top tube respectively. In other words, given the nominal sizing, the 17/19 Giants are pretty compact. Like me, you could probably ride both, but I've found the 19 a more 'balanced' ride overall, if not quite as flickable as the 17; I suspect the 19 would be an even better fit for you. I wish they made an 18 for me!
    Interesting, I think I'm leaning towards the 19" now...the 17" just 'feels' small. Thanks for the info...

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4
    I have a 17" Rainier and I am also 5'10. It is almost to small. In brands like Cannondale with a more traditional frame geometry a 17'(Med) in perfect, but with Giant's more compact set-up I feel a bit cramped. You could try something as simple as a longer stem.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    84
    Yep -- I think that is the point when sizing Giant h/ts (don't know about the d/s bikes). As you say, even for me a Cannondale 17/18 h/t frame (their Med, depending on the model) works perfectly, and I'm a bit shorter than you and the OP. With Giant, I really had to go 'up' to the 19 to get the right overall fit, but have to run a 90 rather than my preferred 100 stem. I wish they'd follow Spec/Kona and make a 17>18>19 sequence in their hardtails, but oh well!

  6. #6
    Singletracker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    410
    I ride a 17" XtC, but definatley put a 110mm stem on. XtC's frame are more compact, but you should focus more on standover clearence then length, because length is more adjustable.

    I went for the 17" because i felt i had more control of the bike, the longer stem helped release by inner strenth on climbs.

    I'm 5'8" with a 30 - 31" inseam, the 19" would have to had had a shorter stem, i could have ridden both. I prefer making a more compact bike larger then a larger bike smaller. I feel if i dont need the larger bike, why bother? I feel 'more one' with the extended length 17". I felt the 19" was fine for pushing around on road, but when it came to offroad it got in the way when i was moving around it and was slightly harder to control.

    I also ended up in the same boat testing out the 17"med Cannondale and that was a nice fit, but i have made the 17" XtC with the 110mm stem about the same length!


  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gcc0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    91
    Thanks for the info fellas...I ended up with a 19" and 110mm stem. Fits like a glove.

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.