jbader

Hi all,

My riding will be paved streets/trails and some maintained non-paved bike trails like the Katey Trail in Missouri.

I'm 5'8" tall with a 29" inseam. I have been told that the smoothest ride is obtained partly with the larger diameter wheels...so I am interested in suggestion of makes/models.

The problem is that most of bikes I stand over give me NO clearance so the salespeople say..."you need a smaller bike."

My budget is $500-$600 range.

Are there bikes with different geometry that accomodate short people like me?

Thanks,
Jack

sniperkttnofwar

Inseam submitted: 29 inches (73.7 cm)
Recommended frame size: 19.4 inches (49.4 cm)
Recommended seat height: 25.6 inches (65.1 cm)
Frame size quoted is C-T, from centre of bottom bracket to top of top tube, seat height is from centre of bottom bracket to lowest part of saddle top.
Calculation based on frame size 0.67 of inseam measurement, seat height 0.883 of inseam. For a more detailed calculation involving more measurements try this site
A couple of resources I found suggest that taller riders may be better with a slightly larger frame than the above figures recommend, short riders a slightly smaller one.

taken from
https://www.swanseawheelers.co.uk/bikefit.php


You can find some cheaply priced bikes that fit. The importance is that it fits. you could possibly go up to a 52cm bike. I'm 5'6 and ride on a 52cm bike but have a 31" inseam. It kinda all depends on all your measurements. Department store wise would be a 26 - 28.

Kitten

grolby

You're three inches taller than me, and I tend to ride 50 or 52cm bikes (traditional sizing). Our inseams are roughly similar.

rnorris

I'm 5'3" and also have a 29" inseam (short guy, longish legs) and can relate to your bike fitting trouble.
My road bikes have averaged 48cm or so, but if you like to mix in some unpaved trail riding a cyclocross bike, or a mountain bike equipped with slicks might work well for you.

I find that small road frames with the typical 700 size wheels tend to have a lot of toe overlap, especially when they're equipped with fenders as many commuters prefer. Some find this annoying, others don't. The often-discussed Surly Long Haul Trucker, a touring bike with drop bars, comes with 26 inch wheels in the smaller frame sizes.

Johnny Alien

I am the same size as you. My main bikes are a Rivendell Bleriot with 650B wheels which is a 53cm frame and a Bridgestone XO-3 with 26" wheels which is a 55cm frame. If I was going to get a bike with 700C wheels I would guess 52 cm would be about right.

For what you want to do and where you want to ride coupled with your size I would get an older hardtail steel mountain bike frame like a Bridgestone MB, Specialized MTB or Trek Antelope (they are all over the place used and also cheap) and throw on a set of non-knobby thinner tires. Those make great all around bikes that are great for commuting, trails, and the general fun trips. Just remember to stay away from the more modern ones with suspension. For what you want to do it would be unnecessary and counter-productive to your pedaling.

MilitantPotato

29" Pubic Bone Height or pant inseam? Mountain bikes (hard tail) with a sloping top tube would be my vote for short legs + long body.

CloudyBright

Look for a bike with a low Bottom Bracket height, alternatively large BB drop. This lets you put your seat up where you need it & still reach the ground. Select your frame size from there. Not so good for climbing over logs, but it doesn't sound like you need that. I think MTBs & Cross bikes tend to have high BBs. Also consider 26"/559 wheels, many great tires in that size.

cyccommute 

I suspect that to get the proper reach, you have to go with a larger road frame but you can't stand over it, correct? For your price and your fit issues, a mountain bike would probably be your best bet. Mountain bikes have longer top tubes for smaller frames (you ride a 2" smaller mountain bike than a road frame) which should solve your problem.

Look at a Specialized Rockhopper or Specialized Hardrock. Both frames come with rear rack fittings. The Rockhopper comes with a suspension fork that has a lockout so you don't have to ride on a pogo stick. Cost is $650. You could retro fit either with a rigid fork if you don't want to ride off-road or deal with the shock...it adds some weight. There are other mountain bikes that might fit the bill. Just look for ones that have rack mounts.

Smaller wheels, by the way, don't necessarily have a choppier ride. Not, at least, when comparing 26" to 700C (29er). The tires have much more influence on the smoothness of the ride then does wheel diameter.

jbader

Why stay away from suspension bikes?

MilitantPotato

Weight, and the Katy trail is for the most part very well taken care of (I do 60+ miles a week on the MKT/Katy.) Also, for bikes under $1000 the suspension kits are a joke, from what I've heard. Front suspension is alright, just weighs a lot and not much use for rail-trail/city riding. Wide tires ~2" wide should be more then enough dampening from the bumps you'd encounter most often.

rhm

This is of course true, but in practice it is such a small part of the equation that it needn't enter into your thinking. Tires, frame geometry, etc are at least equally important. I commute on a bike with 16" wheels, and my route includes gravel (both coarse and fine) roads that I could easily avoid if it were a big deal. But it's no big deal.

cyccommute 

Like MilitantPotato said, weight is the main reason. On the Rockhopper, the fork has an alloy steer tube but it's weight probably runs close to 5 lb. On the Hardrock, the fork is probably dragging 7 lbs. Additionally the fork, if it is active, robs you of energy with each pedal stroke. If you need that...like for off-road control and comfort...it's worth living with the constant bob of the suspension. But that's a lot of weight to be hauling around if you don't really need it. And for riding the Katy, you don't need it

A reasonably priced rigid fork will weigh around 2 lbs. An unreasonably priced carbon fork will weight 1.5 lbs. Personally, I'd go for the Rockhopper and probably live with the fork you can lock out. It's a great play bike if you want to try off-road riding. I might even spring for a rigid for. A Surly1x1 fork is around $50.

MtTabor

I'm about your size, 5'8" with a 30" inseam. I wavered between the 54cm and 56cm Surly LHT. The 54 has 26" tires and the 56 has 700c tires. I finally decided on the 54cm. I'm not so stretched out because the effective top tube length is shorter. Also, I quickly got used to the 26" wheels and kind of like them now for commuting and trail riding because my center of gravity is a touch lower. The LHT is a bit more $, but my main point is don't sweat the wheels so much--I think the top tube length is a more important factor.

alhedges

+1

It is a big mistake to assume that just because the standover is right, the bike fits. Having a TT that is too long, even slightly, will affect you every second you have your hands on the handlebar while riding your bike. Which is likely to be 99.9% of the time.

MichaelW

The "compact" style of bike frame, as seen in Giant TCR road bikes and most Kona bikes is ideal for someone with short legs and long torso. They are designed to fit with plenty of standover clearance (6"+) so you may find you have just normal (1-3") of clearance, which is fine. You retain the long top tube of a medium sized bike with the lower standover of a small size.

Dont confuse your issue with that of smaller riders (5'3"), they are two different issues.

You should be able to fit a compact 700c frame with no problem at all. For mixed riding you need clearance for wider tyres, perhaps 38-40mm max although you may wish to ride thinner ones. A 26" wheeled bike will probably ride just as well, I use both sizes on road and trail.

labelcd6

I'm exactly your size, and I ride a Trek ZX 6500. It's a big bike, but I don't have any problems.

cyccommute 

Yes, top tube length is moderately important but you can adjust the reach of the bike by changing stem length from 4 cm to 15 cm. You can't adjust the height of the top tube, however. That's why you start with whether or not you can stand over the bike first. If you can't mount or dismount the bike comfortably, the length of the top tube is irrelevant.

The length of top tube also varies according to the purpose of the bike. Touring bikes/cross bikes have short top tubes relative to their seat tube length, aka size. Mountain bikes have long top tubes relative to their size. Recreation road bikes have moderate top tube lengths and aggressive race bikes have proportionally longer top tubes. jbader's problem...short legs, long torso...places him squarely in the mountain bike type sizing but not for the reasons that most mountain bikes are built. Usually, you want a shorter mountain bike frame for the clearance...there's that stand over issue...but for his purposes, the mountain bike would be ideal.

dschwarz

Maybe a folding bike is what you need. A folder with 20" wheels puts the top tube far below where it is on a traditional bike. The challenge is to find one that can handle the kind of off road riding you plan to do. Ask on the Folding forum, someone there ought to know what will work.