Am I the only one ?
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere South
Posts: 1,680
Bikes: Most of my bikes are Single Speed Conversions
Liked 3,067 Times
in
1,015 Posts
Am I the only one ?
I’m 5’11”+ with a 28 1/2” stand over .
I just bought a new medium frame Specialized Rockhopper and I’m having trouble with it fitting me . When I stand over the toptube, I’m touching . With the seat post all the way down , I having to hop on the saddle as I push off to get rolling .
I feel like a little kid trying to ride a big guys bike .
I’m not a small guy , I’m just out of proportion.
Once I’m up on the bike , I feel like I’m riding a road bike , all of my weight is on my hands and it’s killing my 68 year old wrists .
I just bought a new medium frame Specialized Rockhopper and I’m having trouble with it fitting me . When I stand over the toptube, I’m touching . With the seat post all the way down , I having to hop on the saddle as I push off to get rolling .
I feel like a little kid trying to ride a big guys bike .
I’m not a small guy , I’m just out of proportion.
Once I’m up on the bike , I feel like I’m riding a road bike , all of my weight is on my hands and it’s killing my 68 year old wrists .
Last edited by OldCruiser; 10-10-19 at 06:41 PM.
#2
Senior Member
I'm 5' 10" tall. I was sized at Specialized with their computer system that measures everything and I was sized as a Large. I got a Large Rockhopper Comp 1x. I first rode the Large and thought, it seems big. I the looked at a number of bikes and rode Larges and Mediums and once I was on the Medium I realized the Large indeed was the right size. Yes the top bar just about touches the nuts when I stand up. But I step to the side so the bike is leaned over a bit so there is plenty of clearance. I suggest trying different brands and sizes to find the one that fits u best.
Last edited by jrhoneOC; 10-10-19 at 08:06 PM.
Likes For jrhoneOC:
#3
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere South
Posts: 1,680
Bikes: Most of my bikes are Single Speed Conversions
Liked 3,067 Times
in
1,015 Posts
I'm 5' 10" tall. I was sized at Specialized with their computer system that measures everything and I was sized as a Large. I got a Large Rockhopper Comp 1x. I first rode the Large and thought, it seems big. I the looked at a number of bikes and rode Larges and Mediums and once I was on the Medium I realized the Large indeed was the right size. Yes the top bar just about touches the nuts when I stand up. But I step to the side so the bike is leaned over a bit so there is plenty of clearance. I suggest trying different brands and sizes to find the one that fits u best.
id probably be better off with a small in the stand over department. But then the handlebars would be too close .
Bike companies need to start offering a 26” version of their bikes . The 29” wheels make the bike too tall for some of use .
#4
Senior Member
Did u try the pitch? Its basically a rockhopper 27.5. The medium standover height is just about 28.5”. Thats 2” lower than the Rockhopper standover height.
Likes For jrhoneOC:
#5
Senior Member
I’m 5’11”+ with a 28 1/2” stand over .
I just bought a new medium frame Specialized Rockhopper and I’m having trouble with it fitting me . When I stand over the toptube, I’m touching . With the seat post all the way down , I having to hop on the saddle as I push off to get rolling .
I feel like a little kid trying to ride a big guys bike .
I’m not a small guy , I’m just out of proportion.
Once I’m up on the bike , I feel like I’m riding a road bike , all of my weight is on my hands and it’s killing my 68 year old wrists .
I just bought a new medium frame Specialized Rockhopper and I’m having trouble with it fitting me . When I stand over the toptube, I’m touching . With the seat post all the way down , I having to hop on the saddle as I push off to get rolling .
I feel like a little kid trying to ride a big guys bike .
I’m not a small guy , I’m just out of proportion.
Once I’m up on the bike , I feel like I’m riding a road bike , all of my weight is on my hands and it’s killing my 68 year old wrists .
Probably need very long topbtube and a frame with unusual low standover for a long top tube.
Likes For HerrKaLeun:
#6
Advanced Slacker
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,231
Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt
Liked 2,557 Times
in
1,441 Posts
I’m 5’11”+ with a 28 1/2” stand over .
I just bought a new medium frame Specialized Rockhopper and I’m having trouble with it fitting me . When I stand over the toptube, I’m touching . With the seat post all the way down , I having to hop on the saddle as I push off to get rolling .
I feel like a little kid trying to ride a big guys bike .
I’m not a small guy , I’m just out of proportion.
Once I’m up on the bike , I feel like I’m riding a road bike , all of my weight is on my hands and it’s killing my 68 year old wrists .
I just bought a new medium frame Specialized Rockhopper and I’m having trouble with it fitting me . When I stand over the toptube, I’m touching . With the seat post all the way down , I having to hop on the saddle as I push off to get rolling .
I feel like a little kid trying to ride a big guys bike .
I’m not a small guy , I’m just out of proportion.
Once I’m up on the bike , I feel like I’m riding a road bike , all of my weight is on my hands and it’s killing my 68 year old wrists .
#7
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere South
Posts: 1,680
Bikes: Most of my bikes are Single Speed Conversions
Liked 3,067 Times
in
1,015 Posts
Although the dealer is a Specialized dealer , they had very few Specialized bikes in stock . No Rockhoppers or Pitch’s for me to try . I had to order without trying one .
the “ fit guy” spent about ten minutes with me explaining , how , with my odd body geometry, the Rockhopper medium was best for me . He said I needed to learn how to ride the bike the way it “fit” me .
I’m 68 years old , I can’t ride with my tail end higher than my hands .
The bike is very twitchy .
I’ve ordered an adjustable stem and a 30mm riser handlebars . I hope the cables are long enough to use both .
the “ fit guy” spent about ten minutes with me explaining , how , with my odd body geometry, the Rockhopper medium was best for me . He said I needed to learn how to ride the bike the way it “fit” me .
I’m 68 years old , I can’t ride with my tail end higher than my hands .
The bike is very twitchy .
I’ve ordered an adjustable stem and a 30mm riser handlebars . I hope the cables are long enough to use both .
#8
I'm nearly 6' 2" and believe current mtb geometry has insanely long effective top tube length. It forces you to sort of lean forward and prop yourself against the handlebar which places strain your hands, arms, and shoulders. Modern geometry 29ers especially also have waaaay too long wheelbases and it feels like driving an 18-wheeler truck. It's better to have shorter ETT and use longer stems if you need that extra reach. The too-long ETT geometry bikes effectively limit your options though.
The too long ETT length combined with the too high headtube also makes current geometry bikes twitchy because it's impossible to get adequate weight on the front wheel especially riding uphill. I absolutely loathe the current "forward geometry" fad.
People have the intuitive sense that sitting more upright on a bike is going to be more comfortable but I've discovered by experience that having the bars much lower than the saddle is desirable because it lowers your center of gravity and allows more weight balance between the wheels. Doesn't that put too much weight on your hands though? No, if your bars are low enough weight comes off your hands and is transferred to your spine, pelvis, legs and feet. This lower position can cause problems for people who are overweight with limited mobility though.
Currently the geometry of bikes is biased toward excessive reach but I prefer the geometry of vintage mtbs with their bias of lower front ends (and rigid forks). The older bikes had shorter ETT. The only liability of first and second generation mtb bikes is their weight, they are usually heavy steel frames. I'm hoping that someday the traditional "square geometry" mtbs make a comeback but with 27.5 wheels and made from lightweight 853 tig-welded steel or carbon.
The too long ETT length combined with the too high headtube also makes current geometry bikes twitchy because it's impossible to get adequate weight on the front wheel especially riding uphill. I absolutely loathe the current "forward geometry" fad.
People have the intuitive sense that sitting more upright on a bike is going to be more comfortable but I've discovered by experience that having the bars much lower than the saddle is desirable because it lowers your center of gravity and allows more weight balance between the wheels. Doesn't that put too much weight on your hands though? No, if your bars are low enough weight comes off your hands and is transferred to your spine, pelvis, legs and feet. This lower position can cause problems for people who are overweight with limited mobility though.
Currently the geometry of bikes is biased toward excessive reach but I prefer the geometry of vintage mtbs with their bias of lower front ends (and rigid forks). The older bikes had shorter ETT. The only liability of first and second generation mtb bikes is their weight, they are usually heavy steel frames. I'm hoping that someday the traditional "square geometry" mtbs make a comeback but with 27.5 wheels and made from lightweight 853 tig-welded steel or carbon.
Last edited by Clem von Jones; 10-11-19 at 09:35 AM.
Likes For Clem von Jones:
#9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere South
Posts: 1,680
Bikes: Most of my bikes are Single Speed Conversions
Liked 3,067 Times
in
1,015 Posts
I'm nearly 6' 2" and believe current mtb geometry has insanely long effective top tube length. It forces you to sort of lean forward and prop yourself against the handlebar which places strain your hands, arms, and shoulders. Modern geometry 29ers especially also have waaaay too long wheelbases and it feels like driving an 18-wheeler truck. It's better to have shorter ETT and use longer stems if you need that extra reach. The too-long ETT geometry bikes effectively limit your options though.
The too long ETT length combined with the too high headtube also makes current geometry bikes twitchy because it's impossible to get adequate weight on the front wheel especially riding uphill. I absolutely loathe the current "forward geometry" fad.
People have the intuitive sense that sitting more upright on a bike is going to be more comfortable but I've discovered by experience that having the bars much lower than the saddle is desirable because it lowers your center of gravity and allows more weight balance between the wheels. Doesn't that put too much weight on your hands though? No, if your bars are low enough weight comes off your hands and is transferred to your spine, pelvis, legs and feet. This lower position can cause problems for people who are overweight with limited mobility though.
Currently the geometry of bikes is biased toward excessive reach but I prefer the geometry of vintage mtbs with their bias of lower front ends (and rigid forks). The older bikes had shorter ETT. The only liability of first and second generation mtb bikes is their weight, they are usually heavy steel frames. I'm hoping that someday the traditional "square geometry" mtbs make a comeback but with 27.5 wheels and made from lightweight 853 tig-welded steel or carbon.
The too long ETT length combined with the too high headtube also makes current geometry bikes twitchy because it's impossible to get adequate weight on the front wheel especially riding uphill. I absolutely loathe the current "forward geometry" fad.
People have the intuitive sense that sitting more upright on a bike is going to be more comfortable but I've discovered by experience that having the bars much lower than the saddle is desirable because it lowers your center of gravity and allows more weight balance between the wheels. Doesn't that put too much weight on your hands though? No, if your bars are low enough weight comes off your hands and is transferred to your spine, pelvis, legs and feet. This lower position can cause problems for people who are overweight with limited mobility though.
Currently the geometry of bikes is biased toward excessive reach but I prefer the geometry of vintage mtbs with their bias of lower front ends (and rigid forks). The older bikes had shorter ETT. The only liability of first and second generation mtb bikes is their weight, they are usually heavy steel frames. I'm hoping that someday the traditional "square geometry" mtbs make a comeback but with 27.5 wheels and made from lightweight 853 tig-welded steel or carbon.
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 25 miles northwest of Boston
Posts: 29,593
Bikes: Bottecchia Sprint, GT Timberline 29r, Marin Muirwoods 29er, Trek FX Alpha 7.0
Liked 3,611 Times
in
2,359 Posts
I found that climbing steep hills, if I stall & have to bail by straddling the top tube, it helps if the top tube, on level ground is NOT touching me, cuz on the uphill that bar comes even closer to my crotch. I can't imagine riding a bike that is already touching me up a steep incline
Likes For rumrunn6:
#11
Senior Member
Although the dealer is a Specialized dealer , they had very few Specialized bikes in stock . No Rockhoppers or Pitch’s for me to try . I had to order without trying one .
the “ fit guy” spent about ten minutes with me explaining , how , with my odd body geometry, the Rockhopper medium was best for me . He said I needed to learn how to ride the bike the way it “fit” me .
I’m 68 years old , I can’t ride with my tail end higher than my hands .
The bike is very twitchy .
I’ve ordered an adjustable stem and a 30mm riser handlebars . I hope the cables are long enough to use both .
the “ fit guy” spent about ten minutes with me explaining , how , with my odd body geometry, the Rockhopper medium was best for me . He said I needed to learn how to ride the bike the way it “fit” me .
I’m 68 years old , I can’t ride with my tail end higher than my hands .
The bike is very twitchy .
I’ve ordered an adjustable stem and a 30mm riser handlebars . I hope the cables are long enough to use both .
#12
Senior Member
I'm nearly 6' 2" and believe current mtb geometry has insanely long effective top tube length. It forces you to sort of lean forward and prop yourself against the handlebar which places strain your hands, arms, and shoulders. Modern geometry 29ers especially also have waaaay too long wheelbases and it feels like driving an 18-wheeler truck. It's better to have shorter ETT and use longer stems if you need that extra reach. The too-long ETT geometry bikes effectively limit your options though.
The too long ETT length combined with the too high headtube also makes current geometry bikes twitchy because it's impossible to get adequate weight on the front wheel especially riding uphill. I absolutely loathe the current "forward geometry" fad.
People have the intuitive sense that sitting more upright on a bike is going to be more comfortable but I've discovered by experience that having the bars much lower than the saddle is desirable because it lowers your center of gravity and allows more weight balance between the wheels. Doesn't that put too much weight on your hands though? No, if your bars are low enough weight comes off your hands and is transferred to your spine, pelvis, legs and feet. This lower position can cause problems for people who are overweight with limited mobility though.
Currently the geometry of bikes is biased toward excessive reach but I prefer the geometry of vintage mtbs with their bias of lower front ends (and rigid forks). The older bikes had shorter ETT. The only liability of first and second generation mtb bikes is their weight, they are usually heavy steel frames. I'm hoping that someday the traditional "square geometry" mtbs make a comeback but with 27.5 wheels and made from lightweight 853 tig-welded steel or carbon.
The too long ETT length combined with the too high headtube also makes current geometry bikes twitchy because it's impossible to get adequate weight on the front wheel especially riding uphill. I absolutely loathe the current "forward geometry" fad.
People have the intuitive sense that sitting more upright on a bike is going to be more comfortable but I've discovered by experience that having the bars much lower than the saddle is desirable because it lowers your center of gravity and allows more weight balance between the wheels. Doesn't that put too much weight on your hands though? No, if your bars are low enough weight comes off your hands and is transferred to your spine, pelvis, legs and feet. This lower position can cause problems for people who are overweight with limited mobility though.
Currently the geometry of bikes is biased toward excessive reach but I prefer the geometry of vintage mtbs with their bias of lower front ends (and rigid forks). The older bikes had shorter ETT. The only liability of first and second generation mtb bikes is their weight, they are usually heavy steel frames. I'm hoping that someday the traditional "square geometry" mtbs make a comeback but with 27.5 wheels and made from lightweight 853 tig-welded steel or carbon.
#13
Senior Member
Stand over height is one of the most important dimensions of frame geometry IMO and is why I bought my Giant Sedona comfort bike. It has one of the lowest next to a girls bike with a big enough frame.
My Sedona comfort bike not only shifted the weight off my wrists to a suspension seat post, But makes it one of the most comfortable bikes I have ever ridden. I had a mountain bike before, It was awful for recreational riding.
For most folks, the frame sizing charts of most bike manufacturers is probably a good start., However it is very important to check the stand over height too before we buy.
Some of the bikes that make your shortlist may not pass the stand over height test. But others might. You might even have to look at other alternatives.
My Sedona comfort bike not only shifted the weight off my wrists to a suspension seat post, But makes it one of the most comfortable bikes I have ever ridden. I had a mountain bike before, It was awful for recreational riding.
For most folks, the frame sizing charts of most bike manufacturers is probably a good start., However it is very important to check the stand over height too before we buy.
Some of the bikes that make your shortlist may not pass the stand over height test. But others might. You might even have to look at other alternatives.
Last edited by xroadcharlie; 10-12-19 at 10:06 AM.
Likes For xroadcharlie:
#14
Senior Member
I'm nearly 6' 2" and believe current mtb geometry has insanely long effective top tube length. It forces you to sort of lean forward and prop yourself against the handlebar which places strain your hands, arms, and shoulders. Modern geometry 29ers especially also have waaaay too long wheelbases and it feels like driving an 18-wheeler truck. It's better to have shorter ETT and use longer stems if you need that extra reach. The too-long ETT geometry bikes effectively limit your options though.
The too long ETT length combined with the too high headtube also makes current geometry bikes twitchy because it's impossible to get adequate weight on the front wheel especially riding uphill. I absolutely loathe the current "forward geometry" fad.
People have the intuitive sense that sitting more upright on a bike is going to be more comfortable but I've discovered by experience that having the bars much lower than the saddle is desirable because it lowers your center of gravity and allows more weight balance between the wheels. Doesn't that put too much weight on your hands though? No, if your bars are low enough weight comes off your hands and is transferred to your spine, pelvis, legs and feet. This lower position can cause problems for people who are overweight with limited mobility though.
Currently the geometry of bikes is biased toward excessive reach but I prefer the geometry of vintage mtbs with their bias of lower front ends (and rigid forks). The older bikes had shorter ETT. The only liability of first and second generation mtb bikes is their weight, they are usually heavy steel frames. I'm hoping that someday the traditional "square geometry" mtbs make a comeback but with 27.5 wheels and made from lightweight 853 tig-welded steel or carbon.
The too long ETT length combined with the too high headtube also makes current geometry bikes twitchy because it's impossible to get adequate weight on the front wheel especially riding uphill. I absolutely loathe the current "forward geometry" fad.
People have the intuitive sense that sitting more upright on a bike is going to be more comfortable but I've discovered by experience that having the bars much lower than the saddle is desirable because it lowers your center of gravity and allows more weight balance between the wheels. Doesn't that put too much weight on your hands though? No, if your bars are low enough weight comes off your hands and is transferred to your spine, pelvis, legs and feet. This lower position can cause problems for people who are overweight with limited mobility though.
Currently the geometry of bikes is biased toward excessive reach but I prefer the geometry of vintage mtbs with their bias of lower front ends (and rigid forks). The older bikes had shorter ETT. The only liability of first and second generation mtb bikes is their weight, they are usually heavy steel frames. I'm hoping that someday the traditional "square geometry" mtbs make a comeback but with 27.5 wheels and made from lightweight 853 tig-welded steel or carbon.
Likes For hig4s:
#15
I'm nearly 6' 2" and believe current mtb geometry has insanely long effective top tube length. It forces you to sort of lean forward and prop yourself against the handlebar which places strain your hands, arms, and shoulders. Modern geometry 29ers especially also have waaaay too long wheelbases and it feels like driving an 18-wheeler truck. It's better to have shorter ETT and use longer stems if you need that extra reach. The too-long ETT geometry bikes effectively limit your options though.
The too long ETT length combined with the too high headtube also makes current geometry bikes twitchy because it's impossible to get adequate weight on the front wheel especially riding uphill. I absolutely loathe the current "forward geometry" fad.
People have the intuitive sense that sitting more upright on a bike is going to be more comfortable but I've discovered by experience that having the bars much lower than the saddle is desirable because it lowers your center of gravity and allows more weight balance between the wheels. Doesn't that put too much weight on your hands though? No, if your bars are low enough weight comes off your hands and is transferred to your spine, pelvis, legs and feet. This lower position can cause problems for people who are overweight with limited mobility though.
Currently the geometry of bikes is biased toward excessive reach but I prefer the geometry of vintage mtbs with their bias of lower front ends (and rigid forks). The older bikes had shorter ETT. The only liability of first and second generation mtb bikes is their weight, they are usually heavy steel frames. I'm hoping that someday the traditional "square geometry" mtbs make a comeback but with 27.5 wheels and made from lightweight 853 tig-welded steel or carbon.
The too long ETT length combined with the too high headtube also makes current geometry bikes twitchy because it's impossible to get adequate weight on the front wheel especially riding uphill. I absolutely loathe the current "forward geometry" fad.
People have the intuitive sense that sitting more upright on a bike is going to be more comfortable but I've discovered by experience that having the bars much lower than the saddle is desirable because it lowers your center of gravity and allows more weight balance between the wheels. Doesn't that put too much weight on your hands though? No, if your bars are low enough weight comes off your hands and is transferred to your spine, pelvis, legs and feet. This lower position can cause problems for people who are overweight with limited mobility though.
Currently the geometry of bikes is biased toward excessive reach but I prefer the geometry of vintage mtbs with their bias of lower front ends (and rigid forks). The older bikes had shorter ETT. The only liability of first and second generation mtb bikes is their weight, they are usually heavy steel frames. I'm hoping that someday the traditional "square geometry" mtbs make a comeback but with 27.5 wheels and made from lightweight 853 tig-welded steel or carbon.
On my tight twisty trails, I "feel" faster on my On-One Inbred (635mm ETT with 80mm stem and 71 deg head angle):
vs my Bardino with 659mm ETT and 40mm stem and 65 degree head angle.
Strava says otherwise though.
I basically have both bikes set up the same though including similar bars and identical saddles.
I don't feel that I am resting on my hands or have any pain in my shoulders or neck on my Bardino as you have suggested (and I should not as the overall saddle to bars measurements are actually shorter and closer to level than on the Inbred).
I am not a good enough rider to say what the difference is (outside of repeating what I read esewhere), so I will just stop at saying that they ride differently. Not better, or worse. Just different.
#16
There is no time ever in my riding life where I have crashed or had any kind of uncontrolled off where I was able to do so with both feet flat on level ground. The likelihood of you being able to do so and so somehow need to rely on say an inch of standover so that you don't slam your nads on the top tube is pretty much none.
Absolute most important measurement is ETT and reach.
About the only measurement I ever look at on any bikes I buy (road or MTB).
#17
Senior Member
Sounds like you have a disproportionately long torso. Truth be told, you're going to have some challenges getting a bike that fits and handles well for you.
Part of the issue is that hardtail mountain bikes <$1000 are nearly all essentially based off of cross country race bikes, where having a relatively low handlebar position combined with a relatively long stem is intended to keep weight over the front wheel during steep climbs. This is unfortunate for riders who do not ride at that same intensity and may not have the flexibility for a lower riding position.
Standover varies a fair amount between bikes, and to a certain point is a matter of personal experience, feeling, and experience as to how important it is. I have a moderately disproportionately long torso (I'm also 5'11"), but I'm also an experienced, relatively fit, rider in my 30s, and so I'm not particularly concerned with standover so long as I don't think I'll actually injure my genitals during an unexpected dismount. I touch on my road bike, on my full suspension bike it is sometimes awkward to mount with the saddle up , etc. For you standover is understandably more important.
Maybe consider a bike with a dropped top tube--this may be marketed as a women's bike, but get the bike that works for you!
Also, you said you have the saddle all the way down. Is this to make mounting/dismounting easier or is that a height that gives you a full leg extension with a slight bend in your knee (the correct pedaling height)? If its at the right height for pedaling with the saddle slammed, and you're 5'11 on a medium frame, you have crazy off the chart body proportions and will have to either compromise in some significant ways or have a custom frame built.
As for handlebar height--hand pressure is in part a function of core strength and power output. If you put sufficient power into the pedals, you will actually be pulling up on the bars. The lower your core strength and power output, the higher your bars need to come. The best ways to raise your bars are to use a high rise stem and/or a high rise handlebar. Note that if you need to raise the bars significantly, you will need new cables and housing. If the bike has hydraulic disc brakes and they need to be lengthened, the whole hose will need to be replaced and the brakes rebled, which can lead to a relatively expensive service bill. The disadvantage of raising your handlebars or shortening your stem in this case is that it will speed up the steering of the bike, possibly to the point of being twitchy. I'm a professional bike mechanic and I test ride a lot of customer's mountain bikes that have very high handlebars, usually bikes by older riders who mostly use them on the street. You can get used to a lot of steering characteristics, but these bikes ride really twitchy, and I would not prefer their handling on a single track trail.
I hope you get things sorted out to get you comfortable on a mountain bike!
Part of the issue is that hardtail mountain bikes <$1000 are nearly all essentially based off of cross country race bikes, where having a relatively low handlebar position combined with a relatively long stem is intended to keep weight over the front wheel during steep climbs. This is unfortunate for riders who do not ride at that same intensity and may not have the flexibility for a lower riding position.
Standover varies a fair amount between bikes, and to a certain point is a matter of personal experience, feeling, and experience as to how important it is. I have a moderately disproportionately long torso (I'm also 5'11"), but I'm also an experienced, relatively fit, rider in my 30s, and so I'm not particularly concerned with standover so long as I don't think I'll actually injure my genitals during an unexpected dismount. I touch on my road bike, on my full suspension bike it is sometimes awkward to mount with the saddle up , etc. For you standover is understandably more important.
Maybe consider a bike with a dropped top tube--this may be marketed as a women's bike, but get the bike that works for you!
Also, you said you have the saddle all the way down. Is this to make mounting/dismounting easier or is that a height that gives you a full leg extension with a slight bend in your knee (the correct pedaling height)? If its at the right height for pedaling with the saddle slammed, and you're 5'11 on a medium frame, you have crazy off the chart body proportions and will have to either compromise in some significant ways or have a custom frame built.
As for handlebar height--hand pressure is in part a function of core strength and power output. If you put sufficient power into the pedals, you will actually be pulling up on the bars. The lower your core strength and power output, the higher your bars need to come. The best ways to raise your bars are to use a high rise stem and/or a high rise handlebar. Note that if you need to raise the bars significantly, you will need new cables and housing. If the bike has hydraulic disc brakes and they need to be lengthened, the whole hose will need to be replaced and the brakes rebled, which can lead to a relatively expensive service bill. The disadvantage of raising your handlebars or shortening your stem in this case is that it will speed up the steering of the bike, possibly to the point of being twitchy. I'm a professional bike mechanic and I test ride a lot of customer's mountain bikes that have very high handlebars, usually bikes by older riders who mostly use them on the street. You can get used to a lot of steering characteristics, but these bikes ride really twitchy, and I would not prefer their handling on a single track trail.
I hope you get things sorted out to get you comfortable on a mountain bike!
#18
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere South
Posts: 1,680
Bikes: Most of my bikes are Single Speed Conversions
Liked 3,067 Times
in
1,015 Posts
Sounds like you have a disproportionately long torso. Truth be told, you're going to have some challenges getting a bike that fits and handles well for you.
Maybe consider a bike with a dropped top tube.
I hope you get things sorted out to get you comfortable on a mountain bike!
Maybe consider a bike with a dropped top tube.
I hope you get things sorted out to get you comfortable on a mountain bike!
The person at the bike shop should have recognized the issue and recommended a different bike instead of trying to convince me it fit and that I needed to learn to ride that way .
Yesterday, I add a 110mm 60 degree stem and 30mm riser handlebars. It helped , but I’m still not comfortable. I think a 650b bike would have been better for me . The 29” tires just make a too tall of bike for me . I've been researching a wheelset change , thinking going to a 650b setup on this frame .
I'm not going to be riding any thing off road that would be considered difficult or fast . I’m looking for a bike to leisurely ride some dirt trails .
In hindsight I should have purchased another Roll and bought some off-road tires for it .
#19
Advanced Slacker
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,231
Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt
Liked 2,557 Times
in
1,441 Posts
Couple things....
27.5” and 29” wheels don’t make a bike fit “taller”. That is a very common misconception. BB height is independent of wheel size.
Something sounds screwy, here. My inseam in only 1” longer than yours (I too am freakishly proportioned) and even frames with 19” seat tubes (large) and top tubes I could not stand over leave me with almost 6” of exposed seatpost. I can’t see how it is possible you can’t easily get on the bike with the saddle all the way down.
Something is just not adding up, here.
how long is the seat tube on a Medium? 17”? Even with legs as short as yours, you should have at least 5” of seatpost showing at full riding hieght.
Something is missing from this story.
27.5” and 29” wheels don’t make a bike fit “taller”. That is a very common misconception. BB height is independent of wheel size.
Something sounds screwy, here. My inseam in only 1” longer than yours (I too am freakishly proportioned) and even frames with 19” seat tubes (large) and top tubes I could not stand over leave me with almost 6” of exposed seatpost. I can’t see how it is possible you can’t easily get on the bike with the saddle all the way down.
Something is just not adding up, here.
how long is the seat tube on a Medium? 17”? Even with legs as short as yours, you should have at least 5” of seatpost showing at full riding hieght.
Something is missing from this story.
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 4,848
Bikes: Schwinn Varsity
Liked 742 Times
in
422 Posts
You should be riding a large with short legs and long torso at 5' 11"
MTBs have a high Bottom Bracket for clearing rocks. If you are just riding easy trails look for a frame that has a lower bottom bracket, hence your saddle will be lower, easy to mount.
And I would say with 28 inch stand over your legs might be too short for a 29r.
Take bike back.
Look for 27.5 trail bike
MTBs have a high Bottom Bracket for clearing rocks. If you are just riding easy trails look for a frame that has a lower bottom bracket, hence your saddle will be lower, easy to mount.
And I would say with 28 inch stand over your legs might be too short for a 29r.
Take bike back.
Look for 27.5 trail bike
Likes For trailangel:
#21
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere South
Posts: 1,680
Bikes: Most of my bikes are Single Speed Conversions
Liked 3,067 Times
in
1,015 Posts
I received my stem riser today . 70 mm . With the stem riser , 30mm riser handlebars, and the adjustment stem , I’m happy to report my new Specialized Rockhopper now feels comfortable to ride . I only got to cruise around the neighborhood for a little while before the rain started . But I look forward to putting some miles on it now .
The bike is no longer twitchy . It handles like my Roll .
I don’t know why the bike store guy would tell me raising the bars would ruin the bikes handling , it improved it .
The bike is no longer twitchy . It handles like my Roll .
I don’t know why the bike store guy would tell me raising the bars would ruin the bikes handling , it improved it .
#22
I received my stem riser today . 70 mm . With the stem riser , 30mm riser handlebars, and the adjustment stem , I’m happy to report my new Specialized Rockhopper now feels comfortable to ride . I only got to cruise around the neighborhood for a little while before the rain started . But I look forward to putting some miles on it now .
The bike is no longer twitchy . It handles like my Roll .
I don’t know why the bike store guy would tell me raising the bars would ruin the bikes handling , it improved it .
The bike is no longer twitchy . It handles like my Roll .
I don’t know why the bike store guy would tell me raising the bars would ruin the bikes handling , it improved it .
Sorry, but you have bought the wrong bike if you have to set it up like that.
#23
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere South
Posts: 1,680
Bikes: Most of my bikes are Single Speed Conversions
Liked 3,067 Times
in
1,015 Posts
I had to do the same with used bikes I’ve had .
Without the industry going back to 26” wheels , I will continue to have a hard time finding a bike that fits “off the rack” . Even then , some adjustments would have to be done .
just the curse of a strange shaped body .
#24
May be . But what’s done is done . The fine print on my receipt says no returns on bikes . So I adapter it to fit me .
I had to do the same with used bikes I’ve had .
Without the industry going back to 26” wheels , I will continue to have a hard time finding a bike that fits “off the rack” . Even then , some adjustments would have to be done .
just the curse of a strange shaped body .
I had to do the same with used bikes I’ve had .
Without the industry going back to 26” wheels , I will continue to have a hard time finding a bike that fits “off the rack” . Even then , some adjustments would have to be done .
just the curse of a strange shaped body .
But you decided on buying a MTB when from what you have done to the bike it would seem you should have bought something very different.
Oh well, what is done is done.
#25
Senior Member
May be . But what’s done is done . The fine print on my receipt says no returns on bikes . So I adapter it to fit me .
I had to do the same with used bikes I’ve had .
Without the industry going back to 26” wheels , I will continue to have a hard time finding a bike that fits “off the rack” . Even then , some adjustments would have to be done .
just the curse of a strange shaped body .
I had to do the same with used bikes I’ve had .
Without the industry going back to 26” wheels , I will continue to have a hard time finding a bike that fits “off the rack” . Even then , some adjustments would have to be done .
just the curse of a strange shaped body .
A bike shop cant suggest an ill-fitting bike and then force you to keep it. SPECIALIZED themselves won't allow that. (ridercare@specialized.com Customer service: 1 (877) 808-8154), a few phone calls and I guarantee the bike shop will say come back and lets figure it out for you....
The pitch has 27.5" wheels and a lower standover height. There also other frames that work as well (Rockhopper woman's?). So there are bikes off the shelf that will work better than what you have. Specialized has a computerized fit system where they take all your body measurements and it tells them what bikes will fit properly, seat height, what handlebar width is ideal, etc. Did this bike shop use that or some guy that said "This will work for you."? Just curious...which Rockhopper did you get?
Last edited by jrhoneOC; 10-13-19 at 06:26 PM.
Likes For jrhoneOC: