Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I found a great deal on a 2012 X-Caliber on CL for $525. I tore the bike down and cleaned/rebuilt it. I also swapped the stock triple for an x7 double. The bike was obviously ridden very little and clearly spent most of it’s life inside. The problem is that it is a 15.5” frame and I think it is too small for me. I’m new to mountain biking but not cycling. I feel a bit cramped on the MTB, but I’m not sure if that is how mountain bikes should feel or I’m just used to road bikes. I’m 172cm with an 80cm inseam. I was aware that the frame was likely too small but I figured that for the price I could throw the frame in the trash and buy a new one and still come out all right.


I’m considering buying a 17.5 in X-Caliber 4 for $550. According to the Competitive Cyclist fit calculator a 17.5 is about right. I would then throw all my components on the 17.5 frame and put the components from the X-Cal 4 on the 15.5 X-Cal and give that bike to my girlfriend. I also have a bucket of x7 3x10 parts I would like to put on her bike as well.


Is there any reason this wouldn’t work or anything I should I be aware of? Will all the components swap nicely? Or should I just throw a longer stem on it and not worry about it (currently has a 75mm stem)?


 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,071 Posts
A setback seatpost and 80-90mm stem could make this size work for your height 5'7.75"/31.5" inseam. Your dims suggest a little shorter torso than normal for your height but 17.5 is likely your size. Wider bars will also eat up some space. 720 RXL Bontrager 15 rise carbon are on ebay from China for 50. You can probably get it dialed in and end up with a more flickable setup.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Yeah I'm good as far as the steerer tube goes. There is plenty of it. I don't really want to move the saddle back. my knee is already about 2cm behind the pedal spindle, which is about as far back as I can go without sacrificing comfort. Should I just ride the bike as is this summer with a 90mm stem, maybe some wider bars and consider the frame swap in the fall? I feel like I may be jumping the gun a bit, but I also don't want to fly over the bars because the frame is too small (exaggerating a bit).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Also, are all of the X-caliber frames the same? I noticed that all of them have internal cable routing now, except for the un-numbered X-cal. any reason why the lower end frames have the internal routing but the more expensive one doesn't?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,071 Posts
You might as well give it a shot and see how you adjust to the size for a few rides.
No worries about flying over the bars when you descend because you're behind the seat anyway.
 

·
I hate that name.
Joined
·
1,643 Posts
Also, are all of the X-caliber frames the same? I noticed that all of them have internal cable routing now, except for the un-numbered X-cal. any reason why the lower end frames have the internal routing but the more expensive one doesn't?
The un-numbered Xcal is only 2013 or earlier, 2014 numbered models use the new frame and replace the previous Xcal/Cobia/Mamba/Marlin/Wahoo series.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
After comparing, the 2013 X-Caliber is literally the exact same bike as the 2014. I'm guessing they're phasing out the actual X-Caliber as well. All the new X-Calibers seem to be mechanically formed and butted as well where as the old X-Caliber was hydroformed. The geometry seems to be a little different as well, probably to accommodate the mechanically formed tubing. Oh well, I think I'll just ride it a while. I see where i'm at as far as mountain biking is concerned this fall and go from there.

2014:
X-Caliber - Trek Bicycle

2013:
Trek Bicycle
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
You might as well give it a shot and see how you adjust to the size for a few rides.
No worries about flying over the bars when you descend because you're behind the seat anyway.
I think that is what I'll do. I'll give it a while before I make a decision.

I was mainly thinking about that due to a shorter top tube causing a more upright position altering my center of mass relative to the bike's center of mass and the vertical distance between my center of mass and the potential axis of rotation at the front axle. Not necessarily the flying over the bars part, but more concerned about the handling and stability.
 

·
I hate that name.
Joined
·
1,643 Posts
After comparing, the 2013 X-Caliber is literally the exact same bike as the 2014. I'm guessing they're phasing out the actual X-Caliber as well. All the new X-Calibers seem to be mechanically formed and butted as well where as the old X-Caliber was hydroformed. The geometry seems to be a little different as well, probably to accommodate the mechanically formed tubing. Oh well, I think I'll just ride it a while. I see where i'm at as far as mountain biking is concerned this fall and go from there.

2014:
X-Caliber - Trek Bicycle

2013:
Trek Bicycle
Both bikes you posted are the 2013. Trek sometimes leaves previous year bikes on the website if there are still large quantities in the dealers. The 2013 plain Xcal is better than any of the 2014s.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top