Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Fatbikes
Reload this Page >

Surly Fat Bike Standover Height

Notices
Fatbikes Designed for use in sand, mud or snow, Fat bikes are the right choice for true all-terrain riding. Check here for the latest on these fun, adventurous two-wheeled machines.

Surly Fat Bike Standover Height

Old 12-02-20, 07:00 AM
  #1  
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Surly Fat Bike Standover Height

Medium Wednesday SO height 30.5, Medium ICT 31.6, Small ICT 30.6. If needing the same SO height as the Wednesday maybe the small ICT would be a better fit. Is the medium ICT an overall larger bike than the the Wednesday? Ive heard it said that if you are in-between bike sizes go large not small. Would that thinking apply to these two bikes?
Toolless is offline  
Old 12-02-20, 01:46 PM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: North Central Wisconsin
Posts: 4,622
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2975 Post(s)
Liked 1,180 Times in 770 Posts
Originally Posted by Toolless
Medium Wednesday SO height 30.5, Medium ICT 31.6, Small ICT 30.6. If needing the same SO height as the Wednesday maybe the small ICT would be a better fit. Is the medium ICT an overall larger bike than the the Wednesday? Ive heard it said that if you are in-between bike sizes go large not small. Would that thinking apply to these two bikes?
Stack and reach are more important than SO height.
prj71 is online now  
Old 12-02-20, 04:51 PM
  #3  
Advanced Slacker
 
Kapusta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,210

Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt

Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2762 Post(s)
Liked 2,537 Times in 1,433 Posts
To echo prj71... don't choose an MTB size by stand-over hieght, especially not a modern MTB. Many models have top tubes dropped especially low, so you really can't use that to compare sizes between models.

Stack and Reach will be more comparable. Look at effective top tube as well.

Looking at the geometry charts, it looks like a Med Wednesday is actually just a tad little longer than the med ICT.
Kapusta is offline  
Old 12-02-20, 08:53 PM
  #4  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 1,923

Bikes: Giant Toughroad SLR1 and Motobecane Sturgis NX

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 900 Post(s)
Liked 231 Times in 168 Posts
Standover is important and can hurt... in snow you sink deeper than the bike.

But I would get the bike in proper size and with better top tube design. Modern bikes have a bent topbtube to lower standover. Example look at RSD Mayor.

Life is too short for outdated geometry.
HerrKaLeun is offline  
Old 12-02-20, 09:11 PM
  #5  
Advanced Slacker
 
Kapusta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,210

Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt

Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2762 Post(s)
Liked 2,537 Times in 1,433 Posts
As someone with freakishly short legs for my hieght who should be the poster child for stand over woes, all I can say is..... total non-issue for me.

One thing to keep in mind is that not all published stand-over measurements translate to real life the same way. They are usually measured at the mid point of the top tube (is that even standardized?) but that is not always going to be where you are going to end up actually standing over. And with steeply sloping top tubes, that can make a big difference.

Last edited by Kapusta; 12-03-20 at 06:07 AM.
Kapusta is offline  
Old 12-03-20, 04:52 AM
  #6  
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks for your reply
Toolless is offline  
Old 12-03-20, 04:53 AM
  #7  
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
thanks for the information
Toolless is offline  
Old 12-03-20, 08:22 AM
  #8  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 1,923

Bikes: Giant Toughroad SLR1 and Motobecane Sturgis NX

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 900 Post(s)
Liked 231 Times in 168 Posts
You ride what you want. I say as a noob have more confidence riding with more space. when i get stuck on a rockgarden and don't have a choice where my feet land, I'm glad to have more than 1" space. Or if I ever add a suspension fork that has 20mm more travel than the bike is designed for.
Of course, if you are a good riderer you don't get stuck on rock gardens, or you lean the bike while you do. but real life of a noob doesn't always allow that.

There is a reason why ALL modern bikes have a bent top tube to reduce standover. They don't add that expense for no reason.

Just my 2ct for MY riding.
HerrKaLeun is offline  
Old 12-03-20, 01:56 PM
  #9  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: North Central Wisconsin
Posts: 4,622
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2975 Post(s)
Liked 1,180 Times in 770 Posts
Except you don't pick a properly fit bike based on SO height. SO is a non-issue if you pick something that is too small or large and uncomfortable. Already made that mistake once myself. Picked a size medium mountain bike (based on my height) then rode my friends bike that was a large and the same exact bike as mine and realized I should have bought the large.
prj71 is online now  
Old 12-03-20, 03:16 PM
  #10  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota, USA
Posts: 1,257

Bikes: 2017 Salsa Carbon Mukluk frame built with XT, 2018 Kona Rove NRB build with Sram Apex 1,2008 Salsa El Mariachi, 1986 Centurion Ironman

Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 286 Post(s)
Liked 100 Times in 65 Posts
Originally Posted by Toolless
Medium Wednesday SO height 30.5, Medium ICT 31.6, Small ICT 30.6. If needing the same SO height as the Wednesday maybe the small ICT would be a better fit. Is the medium ICT an overall larger bike than the the Wednesday? Ive heard it said that if you are in-between bike sizes go large not small. Would that thinking apply to these two bikes?
With a fat bike, I would go small if in between. Remember, there are times when you're stepping off the bike into snow into which you will sink a bit. It's not like a road bike. Those are higher standovers than I would have thought.
__________________
Don't complain about the weather and cower in fear. It's all good weather. Just different.
revcp is offline  
Old 12-03-20, 04:31 PM
  #11  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 1,923

Bikes: Giant Toughroad SLR1 and Motobecane Sturgis NX

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 900 Post(s)
Liked 231 Times in 168 Posts
Originally Posted by revcp
With a fat bike, I would go small if in between. Remember, there are times when you're stepping off the bike into snow into which you will sink a bit. It's not like a road bike. Those are higher standovers than I would have thought.
I would go for correct size. The standovers on these are high because of outdated design. The fatbike frame is not anything different than a hardtail when it comes to standover. A too-small bike is not a solution.
You can upgrade crappy components, it is hard to update a crappy geometry.
HerrKaLeun is offline  
Old 12-03-20, 05:12 PM
  #12  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota, USA
Posts: 1,257

Bikes: 2017 Salsa Carbon Mukluk frame built with XT, 2018 Kona Rove NRB build with Sram Apex 1,2008 Salsa El Mariachi, 1986 Centurion Ironman

Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 286 Post(s)
Liked 100 Times in 65 Posts
Originally Posted by HerrKaLeun
I would go for correct size. The standovers on these are high because of outdated design. The fatbike frame is not anything different than a hardtail when it comes to standover. A too-small bike is not a solution.
You can upgrade crappy components, it is hard to update a crappy geometry.
Sure. There are times, however, when someone is genuinely on the cusp and can go one size or the other. IME, it makes more sense to choose the smaller of the two.
__________________
Don't complain about the weather and cower in fear. It's all good weather. Just different.
revcp is offline  
Old 12-03-20, 05:25 PM
  #13  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 1,923

Bikes: Giant Toughroad SLR1 and Motobecane Sturgis NX

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 900 Post(s)
Liked 231 Times in 168 Posts
Originally Posted by revcp
Sure. There are times, however, when someone is genuinely on the cusp and can go one size or the other. IME, it makes more sense to choose the smaller of the two.
If the in-between is based on the fit dimensions (reach, stack etc.) sure, one can argue. But a choosing a smaller size because the design is bad is not a good sizing recommendation. I would select a well designed geometry, and then select the size. A well designed frame in the correct size will have reasonable clearance for standover.

Ultimately OP can buy whatever.... I had a fatbike with a straight top tube in my correct size (L) and had very little clearance. Other than that, the bike fit well and an M-size would have been bad. Riding sketchy sections was sketchy with the knowledge a wrong step could hurt. Now with a modern L-size frame, I have 2" more clearance and never fear and ride more difficult sections (that has other reasons as well).
This is a free country. no one forces you to buy a good geometry bike right away. You have the right to do what I did and buy a bad geometry bike first, then upgrade frame and fork at significant expense. BTW, this year with my better geometry fatbike (same components inc. wheels) I rode 3 times the mileage than last year with my old geometry bike. That's how much better a good bike is.
HerrKaLeun is offline  
Old 12-03-20, 07:54 PM
  #14  
Advanced Slacker
 
Kapusta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,210

Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt

Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2762 Post(s)
Liked 2,537 Times in 1,433 Posts
Some of the responses here seem to be assuming that the OP is having issues with the SO of the ICT. He never said that. His question indicated that he was picking frame size based on what is closest to a 30.5" SO.

Just telling him to look at an RSD Mayor (or some other model) is not helping him, as he would wind up on an XXL if he is still looking for a 30.5" SO. This is an example of why using stand-over hieght to determine your frame size is a really bad idea.

Again, use reach/stack, or maybe Effective Tube Tube if the former is to complicated to determine the right frame size. THEN look at stand-over if it matters to you (I've already expressed how little it means to me). If you decide you can't live with the SO of the size that has the correct stack/reach or ETT, DO NOT go down a size. Instead look for a different bike (this is where I agree with HerrKaLeun).

And to repeat what I said before, published SO heights from one frame to the next are often NOT meaningfully comparable.
Kapusta is offline  
Old 12-03-20, 09:10 PM
  #15  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 1,923

Bikes: Giant Toughroad SLR1 and Motobecane Sturgis NX

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 900 Post(s)
Liked 231 Times in 168 Posts
Originally Posted by Kapusta
Some of the responses here seem to be assuming that the OP is having issues with the SO of the ICT. He never said that. His question indicated that he was picking frame size based on what is closest to a 30.5" SO.

Just telling him to look at an RSD Mayor (or some other model) is not helping him, as he would wind up on an XXL if he is still looking for a 30.5" SO. This is an example of why using stand-over hieght to determine your frame size is a really bad idea.

Again, use reach/stack, or maybe Effective Tube Tube if the former is to complicated to determine the right frame size. THEN look at stand-over if it matters to you (I've already expressed how little it means to me). If you decide you can't live with the SO of the size that has the correct stack/reach or ETT, DO NOT go down a size. Instead look for a different bike (this is where I agree with HerrKaLeun).

And to repeat what I said before, published SO heights from one frame to the next are often NOT meaningfully comparable.
No one said to look at the Mayor and size based on SO. Look at it to see how a top tube should be designed to have reasonable SO. Sizing should be on reach, stack, length...

Obviously OP is concerned with SO. That is the point of this thread. And looking at the bikes looked at, I would be very concerned as well. If SO and potential pain is a concern, those are not great bikes.

Again, it makes 0 difference to me what someone buys. Just don't say SO doesn't matter when manufacturers go through much trouble to lower SO at a given frame size. It cost money compared to a straight TT.
Good manufacturers state where SO is measured. Unfortunately each manufacturer does it a bit different.

But you don't need numbers to see that a modern bike like the Mayor will have quite a bit lower SO than a straight TT bike. That is an obvious frame feature.
HerrKaLeun is offline  
Old 12-04-20, 02:54 PM
  #16  
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
thanks all for your replys
Toolless is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.