Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
People of zee wurl,Relax!
Joined
·
341 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hello,
I'm a 5'8" rider in Colorado and wondering if anyone 5'8" or shorter loves the 29er wheels or would I be better off staying with 26". I am looking at buying a singlespeed and am sold on the 2006 Redline Monocog. I have a nice full suspension bike and this would be a cheap toy ($450). Redline is now going to sell a 29er Monocog for $450 so it is a cheap way to get a singlespeed and 29er. The trails in Colorado have a lot of climbing and my legs are short even for my height so standover could be an issue. Sorry for rambling on but would I be better off buying the 26" singlespeed or should I try the 29er at my height.
Thanks,
Chris
 

·
Reviewer/Tester
Joined
·
6,176 Posts
trail topher said:
Hello,
I'm a 5'8" rider in Colorado and wondering if anyone 5'8" or shorter loves the 29er wheels or would I be better off staying with 26". I am looking at buying a singlespeed and am sold on the 2006 Redline Monocog. I have a nice full suspension bike and this would be a cheap toy ($450). Redline is now going to sell a 29er Monocog for $450 so it is a cheap way to get a singlespeed and 29er. The trails in Colorado have a lot of climbing and my legs are short even for my height so standover could be an issue. Sorry for rambling on but would I be better off buying the 26" singlespeed or should I try the 29er at my height.
Thanks,
Chris
Don't. Don't try it unless you are prepared to sell your 26" wheeled bikes. This is what usually happens when you get a 29'er. Trust me...you won't want to ride the little wheels any more once you get the big wheels under you.

Your height won't be a problem.... selling the 26" bikes *may* be though... :)

R.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
Shoot

Hey, I`m 5'8" also and 120 lbs and I bought a X-cal half a month ago and I totaly love it, the only thing that I switched out was the bar. (the rizer bar was was to wide for me.) My old bike was a fuel 95, and at the moment I`m thinking of selling it so I can get some more money :) . Go for it, at $450 what do you have to lose, except 450 dollars.
 

·
highly visible
Joined
·
3,284 Posts
This is getting to be a FAQ around here ...

Yes, lots of 5'8" guys on 29"ers. I'm 5'7" myself (30-31" inseam, 9.5 feet) and have been happily riding nothing but big wheels (2 29"ers now, plus my 'cross bike) for over 2 years now. The Small KM fits me perfectly, except standover is a little tight, but I'm not as picky about standover as a lot of riders anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
981 Posts
Fat Bob said:
But why does everyone think that 29ers aren't for shorter folks?...
I know that fine magazine (insert sarcastic voice here) Mountain Bike Action proliferates the opinion that 29er bikes are only useful for people 6 foot or taller. I remember reading that in the Karate Monkey review. They don't seem to get 29ers.

The Fisher 29er bikes offer a nice fit with their low standover. They extend the seat tube quite far up and weld the top tube lower.
 

·
People of zee wurl,Relax!
Joined
·
341 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
I think I might try 29"

Well since the new 29er Monocog will just be $450 I might give it a try. I have my converted Gary Fisher as a 26" SS. They sell a 15" and 17" and I think I would go with the 17". They don't have the Specs for the 29er but they have the 26" specs on the website. The 17" Monocog (not 29er) has a standover of 29.6" which would be good. The 15" is 28.4 but if the 29er wheels reduce the standover I may have to go with the 15". I am going to talk to Redline today to see if they have any of the specs for the 29er yet.

Let me know if anyone has details on the 29er Monocog.

Thanks
 

·
Recovering couch patato
Joined
·
14,019 Posts
All else being the same (and when is that), a 29"er will have a good inch more standover, simply because there's more front end height, forks are longer and sit on a taller front axle. Half that extra height goes into the standover height. Most brands use shorter headtube to (partly) compensate for that. Harder to do on a small frame, obviously, as those already have short head tubes on 26" versions.

The Redline looks extremely promising. Disc ready fork, frame and wheels, geometry that will work, parts that will survive, all for the price of a Surly frameset. It's gonna be a pig, but a very smart and beautiful one. I want one as well, even if it won't really add much to my stable. I just know it's going to be good.
 

·
I ride, therefore I am.
Joined
·
232 Posts
I'm 5' 7" and have been riding 26" XC bikes since '85.
I bought a Fisher Rig this year and haven't looked back.
The poor old 26" FS is collecting dust.

Do it!
You won't regret it...
:D
 

·
People of zee wurl,Relax!
Joined
·
341 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
15" for 5'8" Rider?

Well, looking at the geometry specs at twentynineinches.com the rumor is that the 17" frame will have a 603.25mm TT. That is 23.75". That's longer than the 18" Surly KM's effective TT length. I am pretty sure a 16" Karate Monkey would fit me well. I think I would have to go with the 15" Monocog 29er for a good fit. Anyone get to see standover or other specs on the Monocog. I won't be able to test ride before I order mine.

Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
981 Posts
trail topher said:
...I am pretty sure a 16" Karate Monkey would fit me well...
Just in case you didn't know, Surly measures their frames center of the BB to center of top tube, not to the top of the seat tube like many other bike makers.

So the 16" realistically measures approx 17.5" if you measure all the way to the top of the seat tube, likewise the 18" is really a 19.5" and so on. Some Monkey buyers don't realize this at the time of purchase and are surprise when the frame arrives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Trail Topher:
I just came across your post, & am in similar circumstance w/Redline 29er Monocog sizing question - 5'8", figuring on a 17" (currently on a 17" Specialized RH Comp, which
fits great). Shopowner & staff I talked to were somewhat convincing that geometry would be adjusted accordingly, & I should probably stick w/17". However, may not have chance to test 15" vs 17" frames to really be sure... Was wondering, have you found out any more info to decide your final choice, 17" or 15"?
 

·
Recovering couch patato
Joined
·
14,019 Posts
Do you have some stem length left to play with? Even if the RL 17" is longer, a shorter stem by the same amount and all will be fine. Don't fear to go as short as 80mm on a stem. The RL geometry ensured a pretty quick handling ride, even if the toptube seems long.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,049 Posts
IMHO, the critical measurement to see if you want a 29er is leg strength or muscle mass. 29er wheels have greater rotational weight. To me, this is a good thing because once you have the wheel going it likes to keep going. But it takes more energy to get the wheel moving in the first place. You can change the gearing to make it a little easier to begin with, but this also makes you start slower, and it doesn't change the amount of energy required to move the bike.

While I do think the lower relative center of gravity due to the higher hubs of the 29er is most beneficial for taller riders, it does not mean that the bikes are not great for shorter riders too.
 

·
Full Tilt Boogie
Joined
·
1,650 Posts
trail topher said:
Well since the new 29er Monocog will just be $450 I might give it a try. The 15" is 28.4 but if the 29er wheels reduce the standover I may have to go with the 15".

Thanks
The standover that they list is right on. The proto I have in the shop measures just under that actually. That's with Exiwolf tires. That's measured from the center, (front to back,) of the top tube to the floor. Farther back on the TT the standover is much lower. 15" should work well for you.
 
1 - 20 of 34 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