Keep your eye out for the 90s ones, used..

Just to be clear, those aren't "29er" wheels. They are 700C or, if you want to be less confusing, 622mm diameter rims. 29" wheels are just what mountain bike people relabeled the 622mm wheels so as to have a new "cool" bike. All it really does is confuse people.

As for your size and the bike's size, you really aren't all that small. Don't take this wrong but you are just average. Find a bike to fit has some issues but not nearly as many as trying to fit bikes to someone 4" shorter (my wife). I wouldn't touch a bike with a 700C wheel or even a 27.5" (really a 584mm rim). Her current bikes use either 650C (571mm with 25mm tires) or 26" (559mm) with 1.5" (38mm tires). One bike is a 42cm hybrid and the other is a 13" mountain bike. It took a lot of effort to find the proper bike for her.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. Personally, I think the gain in popularity of the 27.5" wheel is a quiet admission that 29ers were a mistake. I expect a new mountain bike out soon with new and improved 26.26" wheels (559mm rims with slightly wider tires:rolleyes:)

I certainly agree. I've seen some really small 29er mountain bikes that look more like a Coker than a properly sized and designed bike.

Agreed.



For your size, the Symmetry probably doesn't have two different sized wheels. Not all of them do or did. Only the very smallest ones did. My (tinier than you) wife had one for a while and liked the fit just fine. The front wheel is a little squirrelly but not overly so. The steering is just a little quicker.

On the other hand, Terry had some aluminum Symmetries made with 650C (571mm) wheels which is what she rides now. It's a very nice little bike and rides superbly. Performance says that they still have a few (I'd call them to make sure) in the 44 cm and 46 cm size. I'd say that the 46cm would be just about right for your height. The price is a little high but they are excellent bikes.

Other manufacturers have toyed with the 650C wheel size and they have some bikes out that work well for smaller riders. My wife also has a Trek 650C bike at my daughter's house that is a pretty good bike as well.

Bikes with 26" wheels are somewhat out of fashion but there are literally millions of them out there so you can still get the wheels.

The wheel size has an effect on the top tube and reach only in how the frame is designed. By going with a smaller front wheel, Terry was able to pull the head tube back and end up with a shorter top tube without too slack a head angle. Post frame building, swapping from a 622mm wheel to a 559mm wheel won't have any effect on the reach or top tube length.

29 inch tires seem so random. Why this exactly? Who knows.

While you're at it I would get the widest wheels your frame can handle, too. Better traction and more comfortable.

What is random about them? They are basically just a wider version of a 700c tire just with a different name to make it more 'merican. Same thing with 27.5, it is simply 650b but with a different name. Nothing really random about going wider, as people are actually doing science and realizing wider is better. 650b and 29 both have their strong and weak points and it depends on what you are looking for in your riding.

As far as smaller wheels for smaller bikes, it make a lot of sense. A lot of major manufacturers are realizing this and going forth and the beauty is 650b has made a big comeback from the old French rando days so you are seeing road and off road tires from a lot of major manufacturers.

Yeah, my height is average for a woman, but my proportions are a little different; I'm an inch short in the riser (around the pelvis) and have never ever found a pair of jeans that fit properly. I'm also starting to suspect I may be a little short in the arms; I'll have to get some measurements to be sure.

Aww, man, what a sweet ride that Symmetry is! It's far beyond my Kool-ade budget, but it's nice to know they're out there. Anyway, I have a nice 2004 Giant OCR1 that I'm very slowly getting into riding shape.

Good to know, thanks.

So... try new wheels? Do you really think I could get away with 559mm?

Thank you all for your thoughtful and thought provoking responses. You're awesome when you want to be. :p

Couple of things. A lot of the discussion seems to be revolving around mountain bike wheels; what about road bikes? Are 26"/559mm wheels available? Just curious; my road bike has rim brakes, so I'm stuck with what I have.

Also, has anyone noticed how low the saddle is in my pic? That's another clue that the wheels are too big.

I'm guessing a low saddle is more about poor fit than the height of the wheels. When you are on the saddle, the wheels have noting to do with the saddle to pedal height.

If the saddle is too low, you have the wrong size frame, not wheels.

Certainly the wheels are available. Many touring bikers like them because it is easy to find replacement parts, no matter where in the world you ride. You can also find touring bikes that come stock with 26”/559 wheels for the same reason.

Or my crank arms are too long. Here are the specs for my bike; I can't fine a mention of the crank arm length.

It's usually stamped on the inside of the pedal arms...165, 170, 172, 175 (?)

My wife is 5'3 and rides 165 on her women specific bike.

I'd guess the mfg'r of your bike would use sizes accordingly. Hope so! :D

Thanks for the info; mine are 170. :-\

Hmm yeah! They could be a little long for you, I'm guessing. I'm 6'1 and love my 172.5 cranks. Also have 175 but prefer the shorter. Big difference in our height and little difference in crank length. :o

Did you get the X small size bike?

A 559mm rim is going to drop the bottom bracket height too low, especially with a 170mm crank arm. You'd reduce the crank arm clearance from about 5" (12cm) to about 3.5" (9cm). It's doable but you'd have to be really careful in corners to avoid hitting the crank arm on the ground.

It might be worth doing an experiment as long as you keep that in mind. Disc brakes make things that we could never consider in the past a possibility. You might see if a local bike shop would lend you some wheels for a test. I also see that you have a bicycle library near you. Perhaps you could persuade them to loan you a wheel set.

Body shape is one of those things, we're all different. For a guy who is 5"10 I have stumpy legs also which is annoying. I should be able to ride a 56 but my legs don't agree with it. I tried to stand over a 56 and my feet could barely touch the ground. So, my answer is riding a 54 and using a frame that suits my inseam. However, its always best to get the stand over height correct because if that's out everything else will be out of alignment also.

It's not as bad as having to find an extra-small bike where there isn't as many options but I do understand the problem.

You can try getting longer cranks which might help you get your saddle height a little higher.

This is also tre though, if you drop your bottom bracket too low you run the risk of pedal strike.

lengthen the crank arms, lower the seat, & reducing the size of wheels might net you what you're after.

Huh? A longer crank would result in a lower saddle. Saddle height is set by leg extension.

I think that's what I said. And a longer crank would result in a higher risk of pedal strike with a lower bottom bracket.

Um... Earlier you wrote that you had a disc model. So which is it? Road bikes using 26" wheels typically use the 650C version of wheels, with a 571mm bead seat diameter. For that size rim, nearly all of your tire choices will be 23mm wide, with the rare 25 and 28mm - no wider. If in fact you have rim brakes, then swapping sizes becomes problematic because the brake pads probably won't be able to reach the new rims. If the bike is too big, it's not the wheels that are too big, it's the frame. Cut your losses, sell that one and get one that's the right size.

Small.