Is a 54cm Kona Jake too big for a 5'8" person?
#1
Dirt Bomb
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Illinois
Posts: 2,867
Mentioned: 64 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5473 Post(s)
Liked 288 Times
in
239 Posts
Is a 54cm Kona Jake too big for a 5'8" person?
I went to the Dave Moulton site, and according to my body size, inseam, foot size, etc., I came up with 54cm as being my correct frame size. I have read where Kona Jakes run large, so I'm wondering if the 54cm is correct. Anyone have experience with these bikes?
I have a line on a used one.
I have a line on a used one.
__________________
#2
Still kickin - most days
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 91
Bikes: Trek 5200 road bike, Trek 7.5 FX hybrid
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I'm 5'8" on a good day. My road bike is a 55. The bar is "personal" but no problem. A 54 sounds about right to me but I am unfamilar with the Kona. FWIW.
#3
Eternal NooB
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sonoma County,CA
Posts: 939
Bikes: Calfee Tetra Pro, Lemond BA, Spec Roubaix, Riv Homer Hilson, Cielo
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It depends on how long your torso is and and what the top tube length is... I'm 5'8" with a 32" pubic bone height and the 55cm top tube on my Giant TCX was too long (would have been a 54cm seat tube). You really need to size by top tube length (effective, not actual on compact frames) instead of seat tube... BUT, a 54cm seat tube bike is generally considered standard for someone 5'8"...
BTW- A tip on a used bike...ask if the steerer tube has been cut on the fork. This my make the difference between a really "Aero" position (read uncomfortable for most) or a more relaxed, upright position.
BTW- A tip on a used bike...ask if the steerer tube has been cut on the fork. This my make the difference between a really "Aero" position (read uncomfortable for most) or a more relaxed, upright position.
__________________
If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team.
If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team.
#4
Team Beer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sacramento CA
Posts: 6,339
Bikes: Too Many
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 114 Post(s)
Liked 159 Times
in
104 Posts
My buddy has 2 Konas that are 54's and he has a 30" inseam.
__________________
I'm not one for fawning over bicycles, but I do believe that our bikes communicate with us, and what this bike is saying is, "You're an idiot." BikeSnobNYC
I'm not one for fawning over bicycles, but I do believe that our bikes communicate with us, and what this bike is saying is, "You're an idiot." BikeSnobNYC
#5
I Love My Dream
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
At 5'8" 54 cm is too big for me. I ride nothing larger than 53cm with a maximum toptube of 535mm. I like my bikes short enough to be able to ride in the drops for an indefinate amount of time. I believe people buy or are sold bikes that are too big for them then wonder why they feel pain in their hands, wrists, back etc after extended rides. I'm certified to bike fit and would personally rather fit you to a bike smaller than 54. With modern compact geometry and sloping toptubes inseam measurement is useless. I can stand over a 58cm bike and still have clearance but the bike would obviously be too large for me.
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 8,941
Mentioned: 130 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12196 Post(s)
Liked 1,497 Times
in
1,109 Posts
The best way is to test ride one. However, you may want to go a size down.
The TT is about 55 on that.
It really helps if you know what top tube length you need. Of course, this varies somewhat from frame to frame.
Btw, the TT on the 52cm is still 54, again, a test ride is really going to help
you decide. Failing that, find a bike with that TT length that has similar geometry.
The TT is about 55 on that.
It really helps if you know what top tube length you need. Of course, this varies somewhat from frame to frame.
Btw, the TT on the 52cm is still 54, again, a test ride is really going to help
you decide. Failing that, find a bike with that TT length that has similar geometry.
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Illinois
Posts: 524
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
As others have pointed out, it all depends on your body measurements. I'm 5'8" and have been considering their 47 or 49. The measurement that is most important for me is the top tube length. My current bike, a 48 cm Redline, has a 52.1 cm top tube. A 54cm Kona has a top tube of 55.2cm which would be way too big for me. The best thing to do would be to test ride it to see if it would really work for you. I would be hesitant if buying from ebay or somewhere similar.
#8
Junior Dinosaur
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: philadelphia
Posts: 26
Bikes: Allan Wanta road bike,Cannondale cross bike, bob jackson classic road, bob jackson touring.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I would also add that stem length and bar shape make a big difference. I am 5'8" and have ridden a 54 and it fit very well, and I have a shorter torso. I don't count out a frame on a quick test ride if it feels reasonably close, a degree or two of stem rise and bars with tighter angles and shallow drops can make a huge difference without even changing stem length.
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 80
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I owned a 2006 Kona Jake( brown. black and yellow) for a short period of time that I got at a great deal for $450.00. It was sitting in my LBS collecting dust so the owner cut me a deal. I picked it up and I never could get used to the stand over height. It was way to snug for my liking.
I'm 5'8 about 154lbs with a 29.5 or 30 inseam and I didnt like how it felt I had to leap over the bike. I know you never really plant your feet down while riding but it made me feel like the bike was rather tall riding. I sold it. I prefer smaller bikes for the sake of control and being able to plant your feet around quick corners on the local fire trails and the easy mount/dismount ina cross race. I guess the smaller compact frame allows me to have quicker response. It does tighten up the shouldering points yet riding feels good , But thats just me. Sold the bike, now i go with a 50cm or some times a 52.
I'm 5'8 about 154lbs with a 29.5 or 30 inseam and I didnt like how it felt I had to leap over the bike. I know you never really plant your feet down while riding but it made me feel like the bike was rather tall riding. I sold it. I prefer smaller bikes for the sake of control and being able to plant your feet around quick corners on the local fire trails and the easy mount/dismount ina cross race. I guess the smaller compact frame allows me to have quicker response. It does tighten up the shouldering points yet riding feels good , But thats just me. Sold the bike, now i go with a 50cm or some times a 52.
Last edited by steelcx; 01-11-09 at 01:02 AM.
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,119
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
A smaller frame does not make mounting or dismounting a bike any easier, and having a bike with more drop from saddle to bars, and a shorter wheelbase, would tend to make it more difficult to control.
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 80
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The 54 was a bit large for me. It seemed like I was riding a horse not a bike for the most part. I'm no bike expert but I would imagine the bottom bracket height paired with the seat tube length made out for the issues I was having. If I positioned my seatpost just right it was like I had to huck myself just to get back on. If I adjusted it a bit lower it I wouldnt get proper leg extension. I just couldnt get my seatpost dialed in. So now I just go with a frame that I can make minor adjustments in stem and seatpost length. I went from Kona to Bianchi so of course each company has there own description as to what they consider each size is. Overall the jake is a great entry lever cross bike. If I were to buy it again id go with a 52.
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,737
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 Posts
I'm 5'7" and I ride a 55 cm road bike. But I go down one size smaller in a cyclocross frame due to the higher bottom bracket. My 52 cm Bianchi San Jose is sized accordingly. Hope this helps.
#13
All Bikes All The Time
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 2,343
Bikes: Giant TCR 0, Lemond Zurich, Giant NRS 1, Jamis Explorer Beater/Commuter, Peugeot converted single speed
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I am 5'9 and wear 30inch inseam pants. I ride a 54 road bike AND a 54 Kona Major Jake. The Kona DEFINITELY feels much bigger. It rides more like a 55 or 56 road bike. BUT I LIKE IT THAT WAY. It is especially tall with knobbies (bumps into the boys when I am straddling the top tube). I have had absolutely no problems due to the large feel of the bike and in fact can ride it off road and clean obstacles that have some of my MTB buddies falling off behind me. Other than my first couple of days on the bike, I have NEVER wished it was smaller.
BUT, there is no question that it feels big for this 5'9" guy.
BUT, there is no question that it feels big for this 5'9" guy.
Last edited by Sawtooth; 01-13-09 at 03:56 PM.
#14
Padovano
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Boston
Posts: 698
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I will just add to them by saying that I ride 55cm road frames and 53cm touring/cross frames.
The discrepancy in sizes is due to the cross frame being slightly more elevated from the ground by the positioning of the wheels (allowing for wider tire clearance vs a road bike).
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,737
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 Posts
Yep. For comparison, I have a 54 cm Trek 520. The reason the smaller frame feels comparable is the fatter tires raise the bike to nearly the same height as the road bike so the going a size smaller is canceled out by the wider tires mounted on cyclocross/touring bikes.
#16
10 Speed
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Wait a second
There's a lot of hooey floating around here. When sizing a CX'er, the general thought is to go down one size from your road bike assuming the HT and ST angles are the same. If not, or if you are not coming into CX from the road, then, like any other bike, you want to pay attention to the length of the ST, HT and TT. The height of the BB (which is usually always higher than a road bike) has very little to do with correct fit other that it changes the HT and ST angles. The reason folks size down from road bikes has nothing to do with size of tires, BB height or standover height, but rather sizing down makes for a smaller cockpit and redistributes your weight/balance over the center of the bike to theoretically improve handling over rough stuff and off-camber parts of the course.
To get to your answer, a 54 Kona will have a 55.1 or 55.3 TT depending on the model year. It will also have a HT of 13 or 13.5mm and, of course, a 54cm ST. At least mine does. I'm 5'10" and ride a 55 road bike. I also have a 54 Kona Jake. I run a shortish stem and zero offset post to make my cockpit smaller, but the frame fits me perfectly. I hope this helps.
To get to your answer, a 54 Kona will have a 55.1 or 55.3 TT depending on the model year. It will also have a HT of 13 or 13.5mm and, of course, a 54cm ST. At least mine does. I'm 5'10" and ride a 55 road bike. I also have a 54 Kona Jake. I run a shortish stem and zero offset post to make my cockpit smaller, but the frame fits me perfectly. I hope this helps.
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Illinois
Posts: 524
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
There's a lot of hooey floating around here. When sizing a CX'er, the general thought is to go down one size from your road bike assuming the HT and ST angles are the same. If not, or if you are not coming into CX from the road, then, like any other bike, you want to pay attention to the length of the ST, HT and TT. The height of the BB (which is usually always higher than a road bike) has very little to do with correct fit other that it changes the HT and ST angles. The reason folks size down from road bikes has nothing to do with size of tires, BB height or standover height, but rather sizing down makes for a smaller cockpit and redistributes your weight/balance over the center of the bike to theoretically improve handling over rough stuff and off-camber parts of the course.
To get to your answer, a 54 Kona will have a 55.1 or 55.3 TT depending on the model year. It will also have a HT of 13 or 13.5mm and, of course, a 54cm ST. At least mine does. I'm 5'10" and ride a 55 road bike. I also have a 54 Kona Jake. I run a shortish stem and zero offset post to make my cockpit smaller, but the frame fits me perfectly. I hope this helps.
To get to your answer, a 54 Kona will have a 55.1 or 55.3 TT depending on the model year. It will also have a HT of 13 or 13.5mm and, of course, a 54cm ST. At least mine does. I'm 5'10" and ride a 55 road bike. I also have a 54 Kona Jake. I run a shortish stem and zero offset post to make my cockpit smaller, but the frame fits me perfectly. I hope this helps.
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,119
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I'd like to add, it's a common fallacy that moving to a smaller frame necessarily shortens the cockpit. The problem is that while the frame gets smaller, saddle height stays constant, so you need to use more seatpost. This moves the butt up and away from the handlebars. (Another way of looking at it, is that the headtube shortens, moving the bars away from the saddle.)
#19
10 Speed
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I also see some hooey floating! You shouldn't switch your seatpost to adjust your cockpit. The reason you should use a zero offset seatpost would be to put your body in the correct position while pedaling. As in, knee over pedal (or close based on personal preference). If you have to run both a short stem and a zero offset seatpost to make the cockpit right for you then your top tube is too long for your reach. Simply put, your bike is too big.
#22
Wheelsuck
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Which is why I ask. If he's racing, the answer is going to vary a bit from him wanting a good commuter or cruiser. Not that the actual fit would be different, but the overall importance of the fit is a more critical in a racing environment than it would be for a casual rider.
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Beaverton, OR
Posts: 14,744
Bikes: Yes
Mentioned: 525 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3230 Post(s)
Liked 3,869 Times
in
1,439 Posts
That's the position I was in when I bought mine, but then I entered "a cyclocross competition" and my whole view of things changed. Everyone who owns a CX bike should be required by law to try cross racing at least once, for their own good. Not doing so is like owning a pizza and using it exclusively as a frisbee.
#24
Padovano
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Boston
Posts: 698
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The reason folks size down from road bikes has nothing to do with size of tires, BB height or standover height, but rather sizing down makes for a smaller cockpit and redistributes your weight/balance over the center of the bike to theoretically improve handling over rough stuff and off-camber parts of the course.
While I do not disagree with your view of the advantage of a smaller cockpit, you are also spewing "hooey", or whatever the hell you called it, when you say that sizing down has nothing to do with size of tires or standover height due to predetermined wheel clearances. This relationship in frame sizes is so obvious that all one has to do is put a road bike next to a CX bike with similar angles and dimensions to see what I am talking about. If you disagree, well, hell...
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Paradise, TX
Posts: 2,087
Bikes: Soma Pescadero, Surly Pugsley, Salsa Fargo, Schwinn Klunker, Gravity SS 27.5, Monocog 29er
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 186 Post(s)
Liked 234 Times
in
166 Posts
I went to the Dave Moulton site, and according to my body size, inseam, foot size, etc., I came up with 54cm as being my correct frame size. I have read where Kona Jakes run large, so I'm wondering if the 54cm is correct. Anyone have experience with these bikes?
I have a line on a used one.
I have a line on a used one.
54 should be about right. I am your height and have been comfortable on bikes from 52-55 cm. It will take some time to get the fit dialed in to your preferences no matter what advise anyone gives you on frame sizes.