Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Binge Rider
Joined
·
221 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm going to be buying the Flight Monocog 29er but need some good advice with sizing. Hopefully someone out there is close to my stature & can weigh in. This is my first SS / 29er and can't pin down the size I need. The fact that there are none around to try out makes it important I nail the size the first time since the bike will have to be purchased before trying it out.

I usually ride a large full suspension bike 26" wheels. I am 6'1" however my inseam is 30.75" (torso boy.) The bike store I would be ordering from say I need a 19" (stand over hieght = 31.8") I think the 17" (S.O.H. = 30.75") would be closer but that's right at my inseam. Would the 15" (S.O. = 29.8) be better suited? Or does that not matter so much as the top tube length? Thanks and please reply quick - income taxes are almost here! Spine Shank
 

·
loud hubs save lives
Joined
·
702 Posts
i have a 15in, but i am 5'7 with a 30in inseam. i can say don't get the small, it will be way too cramped for your long torso and arms.

i tested a 17 and the jewels were just able to clear the top tube
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
I just rode my MF 29 today for the first time on the trails. I'm 5'11" my inseam is just a touch under 32. I was looking at the 17 but my lbs got a 19 in stock about a week after I left the deposit on the 17. So I went there with my riding shoes (sidi dom2). I rode both bikes and the 19 was the one and I knew it as soon as I got on it. Now let me say I love to ride the road and I like the mtb to have the road "feel" to it. Such as leg extension and bar reach. I have the bike set up with a thomson 130mm 5 degree rise stem with a bontrager select flat bar (not sure of the sweep)and some profile shorty bar ends.On my
ride this morning I brought the allen set to make all my adjustments. I just measured from top of my seat to the center of my crank arm bolt and it was 28 1/2. I have 8 1/4 inches of seat post from top of the seat to the top of the seat post collar. On the ride this morning due to the trail being covered in ice I could not hammer. But once I had a few adjustments done this bike fit like a glove! I could not be happier!
I think (and i'm no pro here) that the compression of the seat and the foot elevation of the shoe and cleats. Needs to be some what factored in also. I have about 1 inch of standover when I stand in front of the seat (sloping top tube). But I ride just xc. I would say go 19.
It is a great bike at an awesome price.
 

·
Binge Rider
Joined
·
221 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
That sucks! :mad: I'm really leaning towards the 19" and would like to order it and have it here before Spring time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
Please Disregard my comments - I went back to my lbs because I was baffeled by what others had posted after talking to them they brought out the tape mesure and they actually listed the bike wrong it was a 17"
I'm interested in the Flight as well - I'm 6' 2" with a 32 inch inseame so I'm torso boy as well....my lbs had a regular monocog 29er 19" which has the same TT length as the Flight 21" accourding to Redline's web site and I can tell you as soon as I got on the 19" I could tell the TT it was too short....
 

·
Binge Rider
Joined
·
221 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Couldn't that be compensated for by a longer stem length? I'm certainly no expert on SS or hardtails but seems like the goal would be to find the happy medium between TT length and stand over height and adjust from there to dial it in. Can't do much about the stand over height but the stem could be swapped.

Wonder why Redline put different TT lengths on bikes that are nearly the same? I would've thought the only difference was tubing and components, not geometery too.

Any one know how Redline is measuring their stand over height? Wonder if they're measuring from HT to ST straight across and then down? This would not take into account the sloping TT. Or if they're measuring the TT, right in front of the saddle - then down?

I'm going to test a straight Monocog 29er next week and if someone doesn't reply to the questions by then, I'll geek out and take my tape measure with me. I'll be testing the 17" MC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
257 Posts
I'm 6'4 with a 34 inseam.I bought the 21.It is a big bike.I feel I would fit a 20" if they made one.I'm also all torso.I liked the feel of the 19 but the TT was to short.I have the almost opposite feeling on the 21.The Standover is a bit high,but the TT is great.I'm wondering if it's time for me to get a custom built?
 

·
Recovering couch patato
Joined
·
14,019 Posts
Spine Shank said:
Wonder why Redline put different TT lengths on bikes that are nearly the same? I would've thought the only difference was tubing and components, not geometery too.
I had the honor to be somewhat involved in designing the Flight.
It's a different philosophy. The MC was more of a "don' try anything funny, don't take chances" type of project. Once RL knew the 29" concept sells, and that much is going on, they opted to keep front center and fork trail the same, but without the long (for a RL) toptube like the MC29. The only reason 29" bikes have long top tubes the combination of short offset on available suspension forks, and the toe overlap in smaller sizes. Since the Flight is rigid anyway (though with suspension option, long fork), might as well get a more 29" specific rigid fork, closer to "optimal" geometry, and try something different over the MC29. Test rides were positive, new geometry fully approved. Top tubes are now more in line with the millions of MTB's (mostly 26") already on the market, and more fork offset never proved a bad thing as far as I know.
No need for a shorter-than-usual stem on the Flight. Some will like it, some won't. At least with 2 complete SS bikes, with RL you have the choice.
 

·
WWYD?
Joined
·
1,604 Posts
I'm 6'2" with 32 inch inseam and rode a 19" monocog for a month and then had the frame warrantied for a bad headtube and Redline sent me a 17" frame instead. Rather than sending it back I compared the toptube with my 6 other bikes (most are 19 to 21 inch frames) and decided to keep it. The 17 inch frame for me rides perfect, plenty of control and flickabillity. The 19 inch also fit me fine and comfortably, I also felt more "in between the wheels" than on top of them.

I'm probably going to get the Flight frameset and build up a rigid gearie and I'll get the 19 inch frame because the toptube measure is the same as the 17 inch monocog frame.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,816 Posts
6'1" 34 waist x 32 inseam 200lbs. rider

I've ridden the following:

- 15" Monocog 29er 2007 model: This is fun and ridable at my girlfriends seatpost height!
- 17" Monocog 29er 2007 model: Rolls fast, flickable, leg extension not enough.
- 19" Monocog 2006 model: Flickable, most like a grown mans BMX bike.

I believe the one size fits all is due to the sloping downtube. Both my friends wife and my girlfriend are riding Redline Monocog 29ers. One is a 2006 and one is a 2007. The 2006 is a better design, color and parts list. For some reason the 2007 came with unbranded headsets while the previous year came with the branded Cane Creek headsets.

Hope this helps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
Please Disregard my comments that I posted a day ago - I went back to my lbs because I was baffeled by what others had posted after talking to them they brought out the tape mesure and they actually listed the bike wrong it was a 17"
 

·
Binge Rider
Joined
·
221 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Ilnacord - That does help a lot. Thanks. I'm about 90% sure I want the 19" size, but what's tempting me is I found a 17" for a little cheaper. Little cheaper = money for the REBA going on there and other little things. But if I can't find a used 19" within the next few days, I'm gonna have to bite it & order new.
 
1 - 15 of 15 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