Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hey everyone,

I was hoping for some pointers about frame sizing. I'm about to get a (2007)Trek Fuel EX 8, but I'm stuck between sizes. I'm not sure whether to go for a 17.5" or a 19.5". My current bike is a 2000 GF Sugar, size large, which I measured at around 19.5" centre b/b to top of seat tube. I like the fit of this, but the shape of the frame means that the top tube drops considerably about half way along, so there's a whole lot of clearance, which suits me fine. The Fuel doesn't have as much clearance as the GF, so I'm a little concerned about standover clearance on a 19.5". I'm just under 5' 11". (My lbs doesn't stock any higher end Treks, so checking it out with them is out!) Any advice much appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Marc
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
I'm acutally a little under 5' 10" and i choose a 15.5" (sm) frame for my GF tassajara. I enjoyed the handling and feel better than the 17.5" (med). I also have a short inseam ~30in. when i buy pants, so i guess i have short legs?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
272 Posts
19.5

I would guess you're a 19.5. I'm 6 feet tall with short legs and I ride a 19.5". I know friends who are a good 2" shorter than me that ride 19.5"s. As long as you got 2" of clearance, you're fine.

GL,
-don
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Hello,

I'm considering a Fuel EX 9 and although I haven't seen one of these yet I did sit on a 17.5 M EX8 and 19.5 L EX9.0 last weekend (all same geometry). I'm 5' 9" (31 inseam) - the Large was too large for me - probably only an inch or so standover and quite long, but at 5' 11" it may be the way to go. I say that because I think the 17.5 M will probably be too cramped in reach for you although the seat post on the M was long so the height wouldn't be a problem.

I guess it depends on the position you're used to - I have a Stumpjumper hardtail (18"), so low front end, stretched position. For me the M is the 'right' size but I'm not used to the more upright position of trail bikes.

For the record - the 17.5 M stem length is 100mm and I think the Large was the same - this is all UK spec but I don't think this sort of thing changes. I also tape measured both bikes horizontal top tubes (EFF Top Tube measure on Trek site) - its difficult to get super accurate in the shop but I thought the quoted figures on the site are rather generous?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
710 Posts
I think 5'9" would be a 17.5 (i am 5'8" with a 30" in seam and the 17.5 is perfect for me). 5'11" would be right on the edge of 17.5 and 19.5. You could go either way depending on what you like in a riding style and how long your legs are. You really need to try one out. Don't they even have an entry level EX for you to try? I wouldn't be dropping that kind of cash if you can't test the bike first.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
406 Posts
ive heard the top tube length is much more important than standover, and based on that, i would think that if the sugar fits you fine, you should get the large. me, im about 5'11 with a relatively short inseam (between 31-32) and one of my bikes is a size large with a straight top tube where im right on the bar. a little scary, true, but ive figured out how to adapt to it. the rear suspension helps.

really people have so many different body types and preferences that it comes down to your own decision. i know that doesnt help much. but me, id go for the large. especially if you like the fit of your current large. caveat: i dont know if theres a difference between trek and fisher fits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Thanks for all the advice guys, looks like the general consensus is 19.5". Now I think of it, the Fuel's seat tube/collar extends a little higher than the top tube, so the 19.5" top tube would probably be more like a true 18/18.5" standoverwise. But then again, the idea of a smaller bike appeals to me more from a chuckability/manouverability point of view.....I'll have to try to find a shop with similar bikes/sizes to try out I guess. Thanks again.

Marc
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
I can't recommend highly enough actually getting properly fitted rather than buying sight unseen. I'm 6"1 and bought a 21.5" Ex9 last year because it was cheap and I thought it would be OK. It was too big and I suffered big time. Tight trails or anything technical or steep saw me in a lot of trouble. My LBS was legendary!!! They gave me a full credit 6 months later (for the full retail price not the heavily discounted sale price I paid) because they felt they should have done a better job making sure it was the right size for me!!!! How's that for service??? I used my credit to trade up to an '07 Fuel Ex 9.5 which is a 19.5'" and it fits me beautifully.

Size matters - choose wisely.

HillBilly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Just checked in the back of the Trek Catalogue, and they state that the 19.5" is a 'virtual' size (I'm presuming that's taking the extended seat tube into account) and that the 'actual' size is 18.5", so I think that'll be the one. The 17.5" frame has an actual size of 16.5", which I think is a little on the small side for 5' 11". Thanks again for all the advice.

Marc
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top