gargoyle007

I test-drove some today. I'm 5-10, 31" inseam. Most of the salesman thought i should use a 17.5" frame, but each time I tried a 20" I felt more comfortable. For one thing, i didn't have to raise the seat up so high. Am I missing something here, or should I go with my instincts (20"). Most of my riding will be up to 30 miles and I am not interested in "competition", meaning top performance. Also, I read about how good the Topeak Road Morph is. They don't sell them in Kentucky. Is it worth buying something else local or ordering the Road Morph G online? Thanks for any advice.

Fairmont

A twenty-inch will be fine.

But so would a 17.5. You're right on the fence.

Most important about fit is comfort and efficiency.

Go to another bike shop and get a second opinion. I'm 6,0 (okay, okay, 5,11.5) and have a 32 inch inseam and everywhere I go they say twenty inch.

The larger bike won't go faster, though. Most of the geometry is the same.


But a 7.5? That's a nice bike. You'll fly on it. Carbon fiber forks. Light.

One thing I did read, however, was that when on the fence, go with the smaller size. I read that on this website in the FAQ section or Bike Basics (I don't remember the title of the thread but that's the gist).

I don't know where you live, but in Atlanta there's a bike shop that gives a 90-day satisfaction promise. If you don't like it, bring it back and exchange it. That's one heck of a confident policy. Maybe a bike shop near you has a policy like that.

Mike R.

FWIW: I am 6 ft, and 32 inch inseam and the 20 inch felt right to me.

I am waiting for my TREK 7.5 FX to arrive.

HF2300

Just had the same discussion with my LBS, looking at a Trek 7.3. 22.5" felt better than 20". Initially they said go smaller, then sat me on a 20", took a look and decided possibly my preferred riding position dictated the larger frame.

Perhaps given no noticeable difference, go smaller is correct, but since you can feel a difference I'd say go with your instinct.