Between sizes?!
#1
Happy banana slug
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Arcata, California, U.S., North America, Earth, Saggitarius Arm, Milky Way
Posts: 3,696
Bikes: 1984 Araya MB 261, 1992 Specialized Rockhopper Sport, 1993 Hard Rock Ultra, 1994 Trek Multitrack 750, 1995 Trek Singletrack 930
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1533 Post(s)
Liked 1,530 Times
in
917 Posts
Between sizes?!
I've been riding size small bikes forever, and they're okay, if a bit cramped; I always assumed that was normal. I test rode this 48cm Kona Dew Plus and it fit like it was custom made for me; I didn't want to take it back to the shop! Unfortunately, the top tube hits bone. I also rode a women's Specialized Sirrus in medium, and ran into the same issue. What do I do with this knowledge? The only thing I can think of is to put on smaller wheels, but that would lower the bottom bracket, never a good idea. Stick with the smaller size and do what I can to make it fit? ...?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.TIA.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.TIA.
#2
Senior Member
Look up the geo chart of that 48cm Kona. Take note of the stack, reach, and standover.
Hunt around online for a flatbar with similar stack and reach, but a lower standover.
Hunt around online for a flatbar with similar stack and reach, but a lower standover.
#3
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,539
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3891 Post(s)
Liked 1,940 Times
in
1,385 Posts
You actually don't need standover height. You need to be able to reach the ground with one toe, and that's it. However if you don't have that, it's a problem.
The usual thing for a too-short reach is a longer stem. How does your current bike feel cramped?
The usual thing for a too-short reach is a longer stem. How does your current bike feel cramped?
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 1,824
Bikes: 1996 Trek 970 ZX Single Track 2x11
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 614 Post(s)
Liked 566 Times
in
430 Posts
I test rode this 48cm Kona Dew Plus and it fit like it was custom made for me ... Unfortunately, the top tube hits bone.
But the Coco has a step-through frame design. And the minor differences in reach/stack should easily be dealt with via simple changes in stem/bar/saddle.
Dew v Coco:
TT: 556mm / 550mm
ST: 480mm / 470mm
HT: 140mm / 130mm
stack: 573mm / 566mm
reach: 392mm / 388mm
standover: 745mm / 547mm
frame: 6061 butted aluminum
fork: Kona Project II aluminum
brakes: disc
derailleurs: Altus & Acera / Alivio & Acera
MSRP: $700 / $750
#5
Happy banana slug
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Arcata, California, U.S., North America, Earth, Saggitarius Arm, Milky Way
Posts: 3,696
Bikes: 1984 Araya MB 261, 1992 Specialized Rockhopper Sport, 1993 Hard Rock Ultra, 1994 Trek Multitrack 750, 1995 Trek Singletrack 930
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1533 Post(s)
Liked 1,530 Times
in
917 Posts
#6
Happy banana slug
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Arcata, California, U.S., North America, Earth, Saggitarius Arm, Milky Way
Posts: 3,696
Bikes: 1984 Araya MB 261, 1992 Specialized Rockhopper Sport, 1993 Hard Rock Ultra, 1994 Trek Multitrack 750, 1995 Trek Singletrack 930
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1533 Post(s)
Liked 1,530 Times
in
917 Posts
How about the Kona Coco, size=Med?
#7
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,539
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3891 Post(s)
Liked 1,940 Times
in
1,385 Posts
It feels like the top tube is too short; I can't stretch my back out quite as much as I'd like. Also, when I stand, I'm right up against the stem. My stem is stock; the specs just say 'Giant Sport' with no indication of the length, but it's pretty long. I thought standover was about emergency stops? A top tube touching bone could do considerable damage.
I've never made an emergency stop which required me to put both feet on the ground. I for sure don't have the reflexes to unclip both feet while bringing the rear wheel off the ground with the front brake. In that case one would drop the butt off the back of the saddle anyway. The one thing you couldn't do would be to drag both feet on the ground in event of a complete brake failure.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
#8
multimodal commuter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NJ, NYC, LI
Posts: 19,808
Bikes: 1940s Fothergill, 1959 Allegro Special, 1963? Claud Butler Olympic Sprint, Lambert 'Clubman', 1974 Fuji "the Ace", 1976 Holdsworth 650b conversion rando bike, 1983 Trek 720 tourer, 1984 Counterpoint Opus II, 1993 Basso Gap, 2010 Downtube 8h, and...
Mentioned: 584 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1908 Post(s)
Liked 574 Times
in
339 Posts
Have you tried the 46 cm frame size? It has smaller wheels, and lower bottom bracket, and therefore lower top tube and lower standover height. With the lower BB it may also have shorter crank arms (which is a good thing, in my opinion). If the shorter reach makes it feels cramped, you can always use a longer stem.
__________________
www.rhmsaddles.com.
www.rhmsaddles.com.
#9
vespertine member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Land of Angora, Turkey
Posts: 2,476
Bikes: Yes
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 687 Post(s)
Liked 220 Times
in
163 Posts
Another vote here for trying a longer stem
IMO, going with compact geometry is also on the right track. I'm no geometry expert, but I wonder if there might be similar bikes with an even more dramatic slope in the top tube (*not* a step through).
I'm quite a bit bigger than the OP, but personally, I've had good luck going with larger sizes and compact geometry; with a horizontal top tube, I usually have to size way down and then put on some kind of crazy long stem to be comfortable. My significant other's 56cm vintage Centurion is delightful once I'm on it- but there is no way to get a foot on the ground without injury.
IMO, going with compact geometry is also on the right track. I'm no geometry expert, but I wonder if there might be similar bikes with an even more dramatic slope in the top tube (*not* a step through).
I'm quite a bit bigger than the OP, but personally, I've had good luck going with larger sizes and compact geometry; with a horizontal top tube, I usually have to size way down and then put on some kind of crazy long stem to be comfortable. My significant other's 56cm vintage Centurion is delightful once I'm on it- but there is no way to get a foot on the ground without injury.
#10
Happy banana slug
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Arcata, California, U.S., North America, Earth, Saggitarius Arm, Milky Way
Posts: 3,696
Bikes: 1984 Araya MB 261, 1992 Specialized Rockhopper Sport, 1993 Hard Rock Ultra, 1994 Trek Multitrack 750, 1995 Trek Singletrack 930
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1533 Post(s)
Liked 1,530 Times
in
917 Posts
Have you tried the 46 cm frame size? It has smaller wheels, and lower bottom bracket, and therefore lower top tube and lower standover height. With the lower BB it may also have shorter crank arms (which is a good thing, in my opinion). If the shorter reach makes it feels cramped, you can always use a longer stem.
Last edited by Korina; 11-21-18 at 04:36 PM.