6' tall rider, considering a 17.5" Liquid. Too small?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    49

    6' tall rider, considering a 17.5" Liquid. Too small?

    I sat on both the 17.5 and 19.5 and they I could barely tell the difference between the sizes. I haven't had the chance to ride them yet, as it was rainy, dark, and very cold outside tonight.

    I realize that it all boils down to how the bike fits me, and how comfortable it is. I will be going back some time next week to test ride them. But based on my visual side by side comparison, the frames looked so similar, the size difference didn't seem that significant. I don't know if I will really be able to tell a big difference when I finally ride them. With that said, if they were in fact equally as comfortable, would I be out of my mind to lean towards the 17.5" if for no other reason, to have a slightly more nimble, maneuverable bike? Or is the 17.5" probably about the right size for an average 6' tall guy?

    Any of you liquid owners... about how tall are you and which frame size did you go with?

    Thanks for your input.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    797

    I hope you prefer the 19.5...

    because I've been riding a 17" Liquid for a year, and I'm only 5ft-6"! I rode the 15" and it was too small- I banged my knees on the handlebars on tight turns. As far as " more light and nimble," hah, I've never thought of the Liquid that way. With over a 44" wheelbase, it rides more like a sled! I have a 75mm stem with 1-1/2 riser bars on mine- you can see a picture of it by scrolling down in this section to "Naked Liquid- what you've all been waiting for."

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    337
    5-8 here, on a 17.5. Its a great bike. I let a friend ride mine and hes 6ft. He didnt have much problems. Id lean more twords the 19 if i were you, but im not so go with the one that feels best. If you want light and nimble, a fuel is callin ya. I wouldnt worry about that .0002 lbs that the large will be over the medium.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by elistan
    If you want light and nimble, a fuel is callin ya. I wouldnt worry about that .0002 lbs that the large will be over the medium.
    Based on some of the reviews I've read regarding somewhat larger people breaking the Fuel frames (I'm about 210lbs), I think I'd try and avoid the Fuel. I need something more rugged. Even though I don't ride THAT aggressively, it would always be in the back of my mind that I could crack that frame.

    I am also considering other bikes besides the Trek. The Liquid caught my attention because a local LBS is blowing out 04's, and a couple 03's for pretty cheap. A brand new 04 Liquid 25 can be had for under $1299.00. However if the bike isn't right for me, I guess the cost savings would be pointless anyway.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    337
    if your 210 you probally should be on a 19. Do they not have 19s in stock or are you really going for wieght savings? Cause if your saving wieght you can all ways toss a carbon riser, lighter rims, tubs, tires. Rember rotating inertia is much much more of a concern than frame wieght.

    Also thats a hell of a price.

    The bike is very rugged, ive done some stuff on it that would make trek cringe. The bike I dont think is ment for 12ft drops, but it handles them like a charm

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by elistan
    if your 210 you probally should be on a 19. Do they not have 19s in stock or are you really going for wieght savings? Cause if your saving wieght you can all ways toss a carbon riser, lighter rims, tubs, tires. Rember rotating inertia is much much more of a concern than frame wieght.

    Also thats a hell of a price.

    The bike is very rugged, ive done some stuff on it that would make trek cringe. The bike I dont think is ment for 12ft drops, but it handles them like a charm
    They have both 17.5 and 19.5 in stock. The 19.5 was a Liquid 10, the 17.5 is a liquid 25. I think the 25 will be la little lighter by default because it has slightly upgraded components over the 10. I'm sure I'd be happy with either one in terms of component level performance, but it would really be a great deal to get that 25 for the price I mentioned above. However if the 17.5 doesn't fit correctly, I could get the 10, and then just upgrade the components later on if I really felt it necessary.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    337
    Well dont listen to me so much. If you feel good on the 17 then get it. If it feels too small later on, you can always get a longer stem and pull out the post more.

  8. #8
    almost there!
    Reputation: AJ541's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    341

    Go for the 19.5

    I'm 6' 2" and I had a Gary Fisher that was a 17.5 for a year and then the frame cracked, thank goodness because I was developing back problems because the handle bars were too close to the seat. When the frame broke I asked if they could replace it with a large frame, this wasn't a problem and the new 19.5 frame fit perfectly and my back problems went away.

    As well occasionally on a steep technical climb my shoes would unclip and I'd hit my knees on the handle bars - OWE!, this is harder to do with the larger frame but it does happen once in a while.

    I personally think it's better to have a frame too large than too small. Small frames do have advantages but developing back problems can be permanent and not worth it.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by AJ541
    I'm 6' 2" and I had a Gary Fisher that was a 17.5 for a year and then the frame cracked, thank goodness because I was developing back problems because the handle bars were too close to the seat. When the frame broke I asked if they could replace it with a large frame, this wasn't a problem and the new 19.5 frame fit perfectly and my back problems went away.

    As well occasionally on a steep technical climb my shoes would unclip and I'd hit my knees on the handle bars - OWE!, this is harder to do with the larger frame but it does happen once in a while.

    I personally think it's better to have a frame too large than too small. Small frames do have advantages but developing back problems can be permanent and not worth it.

    That's kind of what I was worried about. It might seem comfortable on a short test ride, but long term I dunno. Is there a general rule of thumb regarding the difference in height between the seat and handlebars?

  10. #10

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Siberian
    I sat on both the 17.5 and 19.5 and they I could barely tell the difference between the sizes. I haven't had the chance to ride them yet, as it was rainy, dark, and very cold outside tonight.

    I realize that it all boils down to how the bike fits me, and how comfortable it is. I will be going back some time next week to test ride them. But based on my visual side by side comparison, the frames looked so similar, the size difference didn't seem that significant. I don't know if I will really be able to tell a big difference when I finally ride them. With that said, if they were in fact equally as comfortable, would I be out of my mind to lean towards the 17.5" if for no other reason, to have a slightly more nimble, maneuverable bike? Or is the 17.5" probably about the right size for an average 6' tall guy?

    Any of you liquid owners... about how tall are you and which frame size did you go with?

    Thanks for your input.
    You will fit the 19.5...

    Stop being daft... unless you want a big BMX, don't get the 17.5... 17.5 is for short-arses of 5.9 and below....

  11. #11
    almost there!
    Reputation: AJ541's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    341

    I don't know of any general rule but...

    I did notice that last year a sucessful race year, my seat height (top of seat to centre of the crank) was 31" and the distance from the centre of my seat to the handle bar was also 31".

    I was comfortable with this setup, and I've applied it to my new full suspension bike.

    Again I'm 6'2" and I think my arms are longer than the average persons, so this might not work for you, but you can try something similar.

    Go for the 19.5.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,530
    I'm 5'10" and I'm riding a 17.5 Liquid. I'd prefer the 19" though.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,073
    I'd have to say go for the 19.5, I really couldn't see how the 17.5 could really fit a person 6ft or over. Main reason would be as mentioned - back trouble. I'm waiting on a Fuel EX7 21.5 frame and I'm 6ft 3. I can't test ride the size since they haven't even been produced yet, but in going w/ the messurements compared to the standard Fuels I definitely need the 21.5 AND the Liquids are even smaller frames. Getting the Liquid 25 over a 10 would be nice, but not if you'll suffer back problems.

  14. #14

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx
    I'd have to say go for the 19.5, I really couldn't see how the 17.5 could really fit a person 6ft or over. Main reason would be as mentioned - back trouble. I'm waiting on a Fuel EX7 21.5 frame and I'm 6ft 3. I can't test ride the size since they haven't even been produced yet, but in going w/ the messurements compared to the standard Fuels I definitely need the 21.5 AND the Liquids are even smaller frames. Getting the Liquid 25 over a 10 would be nice, but not if you'll suffer back problems.
    See... at 6ft3 I would have possibly plumped for a different manufacturer... A Kona 20in perhaps......

    Horses for courses.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Fuzznel
    See... at 6ft3 I would have possibly plumped for a different manufacturer... A Kona 20in perhaps......

    Horses for courses.
    Actually Kona is one of the other manufacturers I am checking out. The Coiler looks interesting. Possibly the Stinky too, but as I understand it, I think the Stinky is more suited for downhill bombing, which is not something I will be doing much, if at all.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    797

    As everyone has said, go with the 19.5, and

    I would strongly suggest getting the best deal on whichever model comes with the Manitou Swinger 3-way rear shock. I have a Liquid 10 that was very cheap on closeout and came with the Fox Talus addjustable travel rear shock. Its not bad, but it rides a little on the soft side. I put the Swinger 3-way on, and the bike rides alot better, and I still have a Psylo on the front, which to me, works fine.

  17. #17
    Cereal Killer
    Reputation: chadmeeh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    342
    Hey everyone, this is my first post. I ordered a Fuel EX 7 17.5" frame, and from the measurements for me (6.0' tall and 30" inseam) the 17.5" should be correct for me, i think. I compaired the measurements from my old hard tail Schwinn Moab 19", and they are extremely close. I have the Moab fit perfectly for me. So if I was you, I would take measurements from your current ride (if you have one), and compare them to the specs on the web site. I don't know about too many other bikes, but the Fuel EX has a taller BB bracket than my Moab. But we'll see. Once the bike comes, that will be the true test. Good luck.

    Chad

    P.S. I weigh about 210 lbs., and from what I'm reading on the forum, I pray the frame doesn't break on me. Hopefully this "little" problem has been fixed. Now I'm starting to dought wether this bike was a good buy or not.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,073
    Quote Originally Posted by chadmeeh
    Hey everyone, this is my first post. I ordered a Fuel EX 7 17.5" frame, and from the measurements for me (6.0' tall and 30" inseam) the 17.5" should be correct for me, i think. I compaired the measurements from my old hard tail Schwinn Moab 19", and they are extremely close. I have the Moab fit perfectly for me. So if I was you, I would take measurements from your current ride (if you have one), and compare them to the specs on the web site. I don't know about too many other bikes, but the Fuel EX has a taller BB bracket than my Moab. But we'll see. Once the bike comes, that will be the true test. Good luck.

    Chad

    P.S. I weigh about 210 lbs., and from what I'm reading on the forum, I pray the frame doesn't break on me. Hopefully this "little" problem has been fixed. Now I'm starting to dought wether this bike was a good buy or not.
    Hey man, do you have a expected delivery date on that bike yet? I'd really like to get a better clue as to a possible delivery date of these bikes to LBS'

  19. #19
    Cereal Killer
    Reputation: chadmeeh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    342
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx
    Hey man, do you have a expected delivery date on that bike yet? I'd really like to get a better clue as to a possible delivery date of these bikes to LBS'
    They're saying it should be at the main store any day now. This is the second shipment they are getting also. All the ones they got in the first shipment had been sold within 10 minutes of receiving them. So Trek is building them now, but from what I gather, not at a blazing fast pace. The LBS was suppose to find out on Monday where mine is from Trek and call me, but no call yet. I'm getting kinda frustrated with the LBS. I'm starting to think I should get my money back and go to a store that has some good models on the floor. (yeah, I pre-paid for it, probably a stupid move on my part.)

Similar Threads

  1. Mountain bike jargon/ lingo
    By bstguitarist in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 05-26-2005, 12:02 PM
  2. Best disc for rider w/ small hands
    By bikerx40 in forum Brake Time
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-10-2004, 07:56 AM
  3. anyone 6 ft tall ride a Medium Bullit?
    By freeriderB in forum Downhill - Freeride
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-20-2004, 03:27 AM
  4. Heckler -small or medium for a 5' 6.5'' rider?
    By fasteddy001 in forum Santa Cruz
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-06-2004, 08:26 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-03-2004, 12:25 PM

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 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.