no standover clearance.
i'm interested in getting a trek 7200 this afternoon, but im really short (5'2), and the smallest size (15) provides about 1/4" of standover clearance. is this a big concern? i'd still like to buy the trek 7200 if its not. thanks
Gerbil of Doom
I'd advise against it based on the pain and inconvenience of crunching your crotch on a steel tube. It's also unsafe when you have to stop on rough surfaces or steep slopes. The problem with the 7200 for short people ( I'm 5'5" by the way ) is that it has 700c wheels and a suspension fork, the wheels add an extra 1" or so over mountain bike size (26"). The suspension fork is also uncompressed and thus at its longest when your weight is off the bike - i.e. when you need the stand over clearance. The fork could be adding an extra inch or so this way compared to the riding geometry.
I'd say look for a bike with a 26" wheel like a mountain bike. The trek recreation mountain bikes don't look too bad and come in a 13" frame and have 26" wheels. This is the cheapest: http://www.trekbikes.com/bikes/2004/mountain/820.jsp but the 3500 will be more robust as it has a rigid fork. Cheap suspension forks are bad and wrong!
thanks for the input i really appreciate it. i was considering getting a mountain bike but i will be riding mostly on the road and so it wouldn't be suitable, or thats what it thought. i did do some searching around the forum but i couldn't find a clear answer on the standover thing
Originally Posted by blonde
Nah, get a 3500 and ask the LBS for a sweet deal on good street tires. At your size, a 26 wheel bike just fits better.
AAH! go get a recumbent! The seat on my Tailwind is only 24" above the ground (other are even lower). Like sitting in a chair, and I'm only 5'4".
Gerbil of Doom
The lack of road practicality for an MTB versus something like the 7200 is that a MTB will have a softer fork (and cheaper ones have no lock out) and the stock MTB knobblies. I have an old fully rigid steel frame mountain bike with slicks and it's great around town but flat bars do become a bit uncomfortable after a few hours in the saddle - this is where drop bars rule.
Originally Posted by aidan
Just put MTB slicks on a 3500 and some bar ends to give you a choice of positions, (you could even go the aerobar route....) and you'll have a fine bike that will be faster and more efficient than the 7200. I'm really quite impressed that trek make an inexpensive steel fork MTB. If the ride seems too harsh then look at a seatpost suspension stem, or better, a brooks sprung saddle. You'll lose far less power that way than you will with suspension forks.
Good tyres are:
schwalbe marathon slick
continental sport contact
Just keep them pumped up nice and hard and you'll fly.
what do you guys think about the giant cypress dx? If you click on "click here for geometry data" it says the bike is available in size 14.8, maybe that makes a difference? compared to the trek 7200, which has the better components or frame? one more question, is there any way (other than riding it) to see which bike would be faster? is there any reason to think the trek 7200 would be the more efficient ride? sorry for all the questions, i'm just kind of new to this. thanks for paying attention!
Gerbil of Doom
Both seem fairly equal, it's entirely possible trek contract out their frames to giant so I wouldn't worry about that issue. I doubt the giant will fit you any better though. In term of efficiency both are equally bad having a cheap suspension fork. Faster? If you want fast then you want a road bike and to start training!
You really need to be looking at a 26" wheel bike to find something that will fit - what do you think of the Trek 3500? Put slick tyres on this and it will be far faster that either of the hybrid/comfort bikes. A bike that fits you is also more efficient - a lack of standover height suggests the top tube will be too long as well making life uncomfortable.
Where were you looking at these bikes? A good bike shop should be able to advise you on what will fit.
I couldn't car less.
Umm, the Trek has a few nicer items, some Bontranger parts. I find the frames similar.
to go faster you either need to be more areodynamic, hard to do on a upright position riding style.
And you could put lighter wheels and smaller, slick tires. Faster on the road.
Also the headset need not be so high, or put flat bars on. The leg lenght is the seat hight position, but you can lower, raise the handle bars depending on what position your comfortable with.
A lower position handle bar will put you in a more areo position.
A more traditional mtb frame, less incline is better for areo\ racing position.
One reason is the torsion of a seat post if extended say 18 inches. Too long.
Though I think the idea of using the incline mtb frame is a great idea if you have shorter legs. Just get the light wheels, tires. No need for a heavy duty mtb, just Alu with a nice inclined toptube.
i think i might go with the mountain bike, simply because of the smaller sizes. i'll probably have to go see the trek 3500, but i'm prepared to spend more than $239 on my bike. what about the giant sedona dx? it has front suspension, but it also has a size 14. it looks like the cypress dx, but with different tires. could i possibly switch the tires on that to make it a smaller version of the cypress dx? also, speed for me isn't very important, or i'd just get a road bike, i was just curious. i was looking at the 7200 at the lbs, i was told that it'd work, but that a women's frame would be better. i'd prefer a regular frame though. thanks again for the replies!
I couldn't car less.
Well, standover is leg right 15 say inches? Fit the frame (inclined) to your reach- the top tube lenght, or your 'reach'. this is adjustable by stem\ neck reach as well. If the frame\ reach for the handlebars, you can simply get a new longer one.
"cept if the frame is too large, or too small.