FRAME SIZE SS Stumpjumper help please!- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    14

    FRAME SIZE SS Stumpjumper help please!

    Please help me choose the right size frame, and also let me know what size you chose and why?

    I am wanting to purchase the 2011 Specialized Stumpjumper Single Speed 29er. My LBS has a size 17.5" (medium) and it seems like it fits me well, but I could also go with the 19" (large) because they both feel good. They don't have the large in stock, and it seems like it's hard to get one of these ordered from specialized as they have been on back order for a while, so I want to make this purchase immediately if this bike would be a good fit for me. I love to mess around on the single tracks while riding doing wheelies, bunny hops, manuals, endos etc... but I am also wanting to take the racing part of it more serious now too.

    I'm 5'11" tall, and 170lbs. I have been told to always go smaller if your in between which frame to choose, because it is easier to maneuver the bike in technical spots, and it's lighter, easier to whip around. I'm thinking the 17.5" medium would be a good size bike for a single speed 29er at my height and weight. If it was a 26" bike I would without a doubt go large I think. Stand over isn't an issue, I clear the large just fine with a couple inches short of my goods, and the medium is about the same (didn't really notice any difference in stand over height).

    I plan to keep this bike for a good 2-3 years so I want to make sure I am making the right choice in bike frame size and will be happy with it in the long run. I want to progress on this bike, and eventually race it as much as possible. This will be my very first single speed bike to own, I want the purchase to be the right one.

    What would be the pros/cons in going with the medium?

    Could you single speed owners give me some advice and your opinions what size frame you think I should go with based on this exact bike and my height and weight?

    Also, let me know what size frame you went with, and why? Thank you so much in advance.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails FRAME SIZE SS Stumpjumper help please!-sjss.jpg  


  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    14
    p.s. I'm in between either purchasing this bike, or getting the Stumpjumper EVO 29er which is a 1x10 all black murdered out sick looking bike in a large. Convince me to go single speed instead of the 1x10?

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    218
    I am 5'11" and went with a 19. 17.5 was too small. Professional fitting agreed.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    175
    I am 5'11" and a M is too small. I went with a large 19 and its PERFECT.

    Here is a pic of it from today.


  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    172
    How tall you are and standover are not the important considerations. Your crotch to floor leg length and the ETT are what you need to look at. If you want to get knee over spindle you have to consider the how far back your seat will go and that has to do with where the center of the frame is relative to seat tube angle.

    I am 5'9" with a crotch to floor of 34 1/2" so a medium stumpy was damn near too small and I sold it. I rode a friends large and it was too stretched out. Just didn't suit my particular short torso and long legs. So if you can get knee over spindle with the seat rails adjusted within reason and your cockpit isn't too short because of effective top tube length the medium ought to be alright.

    Where you do most of your riding is also a consideration. Smaller frames are better in tight technical singletrack but in open flowing trails, fire road type stuff, a larger frame is not a bad option. Just IME. Sometimes paying for a pro fit is worth the $ in the long run. After my debacle with the fore mentioned medium Stumpy I went with the Serotta fit and it was money well spent.

  6. #6
    nothing to see here
    Reputation: Stevob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,271
    A larger frame is also good because you can then run a shorter stem which will make the front easier to lift over obstacles.
    I see hills.

    I want to climb them.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    14
    Ok maybe this will help a little more with my decision on the best size frame for me. Your opinions?

    This process using the competitive cyclists bike fit calculator is as close as you can get without paying hundreds for a pro fit. I've been told it's about 99% accurate.

    My Measurements
    -------------------------------------------
    Inseam: 33"
    Trunk: 23"
    Forearm: 14"
    Arm: 25.5"
    Thigh: 23.25"
    Lower Leg: 21.5"
    Sternal Notch: 56.75"
    Total Body Height: 69.5"


    XC Bike Size Specs I should go with according to my measurements
    -------------------------------------------
    Standover Height Range: 31.4 - 32.0 inches
    Virtual Top Tube: 23.2 - 23.6 inches
    Stem Length: 9.6 - 11.2 cm
    BB-Saddle Position: 74.3 - 75.9 cm
    Saddle-Handlebar: 52.9 - 54.5 cm

    Here are the Specs of the two Specialized Stumpjumper SS Frame Sizes (17.5" & 19")

    Specialized Stumpjumper SS 29er 17.5"

    Standover Height: 31.45 inches
    Top Tube Length Horizontal: 23.22 inches
    Top Tube Length Actual: 22.20 inches
    Stem Length: 9 cm
    **not sure what measurements the bb-saddle position and saddle-handlebar specs are on the specialized website under the geometry tab**

    Specialized Stumpjumper SS 29er 19"

    Standover Height: 32.63 inches
    Top Tube Length Horizontal: 24.21 inches
    Top Tube Length Actual: 23.07 inches
    Stem Length: 10.5 cm
    **not sure what measurements the bb-saddle position and saddle-handlebar specs are on the specialized website under the geometry tab**

    I'm not sure which Top Tube Length to go by (Horizontal or Actual) but here are all of the specs and results measured the best I could do with just a friend and I.

    Appreciate any feedback I can get from this.

    I can barely afford this bike and I don't want to end up getting a bike too small, or a bike too big. I want to make sure my hard earned money is going to a bike that will fit me well. Thanks again!

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    172
    Yeah most list it as ETT for effective top tube but they have to make it confusing. However, on their website under geometry they say,"TT is measured horizontally from center of HT to center of ST." So that is the critical measurement.

    There is a heck of a difference in 23.22 and 24.21 so if at all possible I would try to get a ride around the parking lot at a Specialized dealer. For me, with my measurements, I would go with the shorter ETT. In Specialized terminology the HTT. If you have bikes with geometry you are comfortable riding you can go by the ETT on those.

    The larger frame will have a longer front center and wheelbase. So even though you can shorten the reach with a shorter stem it will still be less 'flickable' in tech sections. I like as tight a cockpit and as short a wheelbase as fits me but that has to do with the terrain I ride in. YMMV.

    As far as fit, I have gone to Competitive Cyclist and with a friend did the measurements. Going by their recommendations I would be on a bike that is too large for me on mountain or road. I could ride it but not comfortably.

    The Serotta fit was great because it was done in person by a tech who had gone through their school and was trained to do their method. They see you on a bike made to adjust TT length, seat tube angle, stem. They not only go by your particular measurements but watch you pedal and go by your level of flexibility and what have you. Cost $75.00 and if you bought the frame from them the fit was free. Anyway, good luck with whatever you choose.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    14
    I agree with you on the "flickable" part. I like having complete control over the bike and being able throw it around where I need it, especially in a tight technical spot. I don't know how much of a huge difference it is to do that on a large compared to my medium, but there has to be a weight difference in the medium and large, and i've got to be able to throw a medium around easier than a large. I would also think I would be faster on the medium, seeing how I would be more confident in having more speed in the corners, more control on the bike on steep switchbacks, and I would think I could peddle the medium up a tough climb easier on a smaller bike, especially being a singlespeed. I have a friend who is a very competitive racer and weekend warrior and he always goes with the smaller bike if he's in between sizes. He's quite a bit shorter, but when he chose his singlespeed, he went with a small over a medium, just because he knows he will save weight and be able to "flick" the bike around easier.

    In my personal opinion, I hate the look of a bike that has a seat sticking 2 feet above the handlebars...that's just not the riding style I like because when it's flat land and I get bored...you usually don't see me sitting in the saddle peddling, i'm always trying to have fun on the bike and I like to ride the occasional wheelie, or try to bunny hop over the largest obstacles I can find.

    So here's how I feel about choosing between the medium and the large -->

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    26
    that is a tough one,...i had a stumpjumper carbon 29er,...i am also 5 11" with a 34 inseem, i went with the lrg,. but had to switch out the 110mm stem it came with for a 90mm,...if ur inseem is less then mine at all go with the med,...honestly i would have rather had a med,...thats prob why i sold the bike...i was really streched out over the bike even with the 90mm stem...go with the med. for sure....

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    14
    Picked up the medium about 2 hours ago so I'm glad to see you post that. I feel comfortable on it so far so well see how it turns out. I'll post some really good factory pics if anybody cares to see. So excited to go ride it tomorrow!

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by littlebus
    that is a tough one,...i had a stumpjumper carbon 29er,...i am also 5 11" with a 34 inseem, i went with the lrg,. but had to switch out the 110mm stem it came with for a 90mm,...if ur inseem is less then mine at all go with the med,...honestly i would have rather had a med,...thats prob why i sold the bike...i was really streched out over the bike even with the 90mm stem...go with the med. for sure....
    What did you end up purchasing after selling your large?

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fixgeardan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,168
    Congrats you will love it!I want to see the pics to remember what mine started as.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PoisonDartFrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    654
    Quote Originally Posted by The Militia
    I agree with you on the "flickable" part. I like having complete control over the bike and being able throw it around where I need it, especially in a tight technical spot. I don't know how much of a huge difference it is to do that on a large compared to my medium, but there has to be a weight difference in the medium and large, and i've got to be able to throw a medium around easier than a large. I would also think I would be faster on the medium, seeing how I would be more confident in having more speed in the corners, more control on the bike on steep switchbacks, and I would think I could peddle the medium up a tough climb easier on a smaller bike, especially being a singlespeed. I have a friend who is a very competitive racer and weekend warrior and he always goes with the smaller bike if he's in between sizes. He's quite a bit shorter, but when he chose his singlespeed, he went with a small over a medium, just because he knows he will save weight and be able to "flick" the bike around easier.

    In my personal opinion, I hate the look of a bike that has a seat sticking 2 feet above the handlebars...that's just not the riding style I like because when it's flat land and I get bored...you usually don't see me sitting in the saddle peddling, i'm always trying to have fun on the bike and I like to ride the occasional wheelie, or try to bunny hop over the largest obstacles I can find.

    So here's how I feel about choosing between the medium and the large -->
    Sounds like you would be happiest on a BMX bike.

    Seriously. Your entire rationale is based on the assumption that the weight difference between a large and medium is noticeable. I'll bet the water in your camelback weighs more than that.

    Yeah a smaller bike is more flickable, but a larger person has longer limbs and torso, and therefore has more leverage. So a larger bike is still just as flickable for a larger person. Sure, if you are between sizes go with whichever. If not, get a bike that fits.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by PoisonDartFrog
    Sounds like you would be happiest on a BMX bike.

    Seriously. Your entire rationale is based on the assumption that the weight difference between a large and medium is noticeable. I'll bet the water in your camelback weighs more than that.

    Yeah a smaller bike is more flickable, but a larger person has longer limbs and torso, and therefore has more leverage. So a larger bike is still just as flickable for a larger person. Sure, if you are between sizes go with whichever. If not, get a bike that fits.
    Calm down, I already posted that I bought the medium and love it.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PoisonDartFrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    654
    Quote Originally Posted by The Militia
    Calm down, I already posted that I bought the medium and love it.
    I'm not upset. Like I wrote, if you are between sizes, go with whichever. Otherwise, get a bike that fits.

    But the "weight difference" argument is too often over-used on this forum, without people ever quantifying what that difference actually is and whether or not it is significant. Usually, it's just a red herring, and it fails to account for other significant factors.

    I know there are some serious competitive riders on MTBR, but the VAST majority are recreational riders. It's sometimes funny to see casual riders argue over the subtle effects that minor differences in equipment have on their bikes. Differences that are so small, they most likely don't have the ability to recognize them.

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.