[kapusta]

As a short-legged guy that has had many mtbs over the years with zero standover clearance, I find it a total non-issue. I literally never find the need to stand flat footed straddling the top tube.

 

[rtsideup]

As others have stated: big wheels + big travel = high standover. Not really a way around it.
If you're really that concerned with standover, look at 27.5" bikes with short travel.
Or, what kapusta just said!

 

[Harold]

I'd say going up a steep hill in a mass start event and someone in front of you suddenly stops to get off the bike and you might suddenly need to put your feet down, standover does matter.
Its not like I've never ridden a bike before. I can tell you it has happened a handfull of times where I've had to very carefully get feet down and tippy toe around it. Luckily never been injured but would much prefer to have extra room.

If you got long legs and it doesn't matter to you, great for you!

I wasn't invalidating your desire to have a bike with a low standover height. But it's not a fit dimension. You could get all the standover clearance in the world from a kids' mtb with 24" wheels, but that bike isn't going to fit you.

I said before that there are limitations with off-the-shelf bikes that you're simply not going to be able to avoid. Either you suck it up and ride one, accepting little to no standover, or you pony up for a custom bike that offers every little thing you want.

It sucks for short inseam people, but that's where we are.

 

[JackieTreehorn8]

The standover numbers are not measured the same. A better estimate is to look at a picture and see how far the top tube veers from a direct line to rear axle. And then compare to what you are used to. Standover does matter though! For leaning the bike over.

 

[In2bikes]

I can say i have come to a dead stop and hopped off the bike only to be so glad i actually had that standover clearance.

but that was a mistake by me. No diff than a crash. Once you learn to mount and dismount with understanding you never do that type of thing again. You just always get off with one leg to the side.


i think my ability to climb technical stuff has improved dramatically so that the need to stop in an awkward spot has diminished.

a new bike will put you forward on the bike. Bring you into a position where the bike climbs things you never could before. The 29er wheels give you a huge roll over advantage from previous 26" bike that you will giggle at how easy some trail obstacles have now become. Dont forget modern gearing as well.

 

[TwiceHorn]

meat the head tube

Freud.

 

[Krapper2]

Please see @Jayem 's dot-sig

 

[pushie]

As others have stated: big wheels + big travel = high standover. Not really a way around it.
If you're really that concerned with standover, look at 27.5" bikes with short travel.
Or, what kapusta just said!

I agree with this.

If you have stumpy legs and you feel you need better groin clearance then you should probably look at 27.5 bikes.

If you keep everything the same and just swap the wheels out you save about 16mm in standover height as the small wheels drop the whole bike by this amount.

Personally I don't see standover as a huge issue, and technique can get around a lack of clearance, like leaning the bike to one side when you stop. But I must admit I am speaking from the position of long legged privilege so the issue may be more significant than I can truly appreciate.

 

[bbgobie]

It might not matter for most of you, but to me it's like a criteria that we'll likely influence my final decision. At the end of the day there are more bikes than ever that for the criteria of short travel, good climbing and fun to ride. If one is going to be giving me a massage while standing there talking to the sales man and one gives room to breath I probably know what I'm going for.

It's not like I already don't get off to the side or know how to stand over a bike. It's for the once a season o crap moment when something happens.

An inch is a ton of space when you need it.

Think of it like blind spot detection in a car. You don't really need it. Check your blind spot. But eventually might come a day you're glad you opted for it.

 

[bbgobie]

Long legged privilege is a thing. You guys take for granted long steps, fast walking, getting into roller coaster rides

Personally I don't see standover as a huge issue, and technique can get around a lack of clearance, like leaning the bike to one side when you stop. But I must admit I am speaking from the position of long legged privilege so the issue may be more significant than I can truly appreciate.

 

[Cleared2land]

Do you think this is something that I should be concerned about?

You asked, some answered, but you don't seem to like hearing others answers.

 

[bbgobie]

You asked, some answered, but you don't seem to like hearing others answers.

In my experience being able to safely clear a top tube is important and its something I'm looking for in a bike. I've explained this above. I'm not going to purchase a bike solely because the stand over is like 5" lower than another bike, but its factor in my purchase. There's many other factors, some might be geometry related like reach, and some might be the intention or performance of a bike, spec, price, availability. Not sure why it bothers you that I'm looking for a bike that might provide more clearance or that I'm curious why stand over height on a geometry chart my increase as sizes go down.

Someone actually suggested a bike to look at. Some people suggested other considerations besides a standover height on a geometry chart.
No one really had a good explanation for why a small size bike would have a higher stand over height on a geometry chart than a medium.

You can say tubes are sloped down or whatever, but if a geometry is to fit 90% of peoples bodies, than it would only make sense as you size down everything kinda gets sized down, if certain measurements get sized up as you size down, than the smaller size instead of fitting 90% of peoples bodies probably fits 80%.

 

[jake17]

Standover is a huge issue when you don’t have it. It’s not matter of skill or technique - why bother riding a bike that doesn’t fit your body type at all?

I’m 6’ with short legs. It’s the first number I look at in the geo chart. Then ETT and reach because my short legs came with a long torso. There are plenty of bikes out there that fit that bill.

Over the past few years I’ve bought frames from Yeti, Cotic and Reeb. All of those have pretty consistent standovers across the size run - they’re long and low. Some others that can have similar geo are Transition, Banshee, Pivot, and Santa Cruz. I can’t fit anything from Niner or Specialized. There’s some good options out there - no point in buying something that doesn’t fit.

 

[MistaMike]

I'm also 5'8" with shorter legs, shorter arms and longer torso. Basically the geometry of a minion, just slightly less pill shaped. Currently riding a size medium Transition Sentinel. I can attest to the bike having standover for days. A guy I ride with is a little shorter than I am and he's super comfortable on a size medium Spur. My brother in law is shorter than me by 1.5" and is on an older Evil Insurgent 27.5 and does alright. A much taller friend just picked up a size large Commencal Meta and it's actually pretty good. I'm with you, it's awesome having that much room to move around the bike. The only thing that has made contact with the 'ol branch n' berries is the 29" rear, though that could also be due to poor body positioning on my part and a couple badly cased jumps. I'm contemplating a mullet set up for my next bike, like the Patrol. LBS in the area stock Spesh, SC, Trek, Ibis, Yeti, SCOR, Orbea, Bold, Giant, Pivot and where I bought from also carry Scott, Cannondale, Transition. I've tried quite a few frames and generally, none beat the clearance of Transition with Pivot a close second. Another factor I find critical is how much post insertion a frame has, mine came stock with a 180, though I have room to run a 200mm. The seat just disappears on the downs. The new Unno frames look super low but ruined by the tall seat tube. I like my cockpit higher, so I run a +6 stem and +35 bar with 25mm of spacers. Shortens reach significantly due to slackness of the head angle, but helps keep me more upright and less hinged at the hips giving me a bit more room between me and the top tube. Unfortunately their complete bikes don't seem to leave much length on the steerers for adjustment. I'm going to try shorter cranks as well, should pick up a few mils there and maybe the Yoshimura ENDH stem to take back some reach or keep dreaming ONEUP will release a 45. But I'd recommend checking out the Spur or even the new Smuggler. Hope this helps!

 

[Harold]

You can say tubes are sloped down or whatever, but if a geometry is to fit 90% of peoples bodies, than it would only make sense as you size down everything kinda gets sized down, if certain measurements get sized up as you size down, than the smaller size instead of fitting 90% of peoples bodies probably fits 80%.

It has always been true that bike fits get weirder the farther you deviate from the most common medium and large frame sizes.

it has always been true that bike manufacturers do not consistently change all dimensions on a frame when changing frame sizes. When looking at full suspension bikes, the frame must fit the parts needed for the rear suspension. A manufacturer is not going to change the whole rear suspension design just for smaller frames so they can have more standover clearance. Chances are, they only have access to a limited number of rear suspension designs anyway because of licensing agreements, intellectual property, and whatnot. It also costs a lot of money to move parts around to get the characteristics they want.

When it comes to why the standover of a smaller frame size might actually be higher than a larger frame size, the simple answer here is geometry. Those smaller frames are shorter in length than larger frames. HOWEVER, the front end is probably not any lower (or much lower). The fork dimensions are going to be the same for all sizes of a given model. Some manufacturers adjust headtube length by frame size, but many do not. But even when they do, there's not a whole lot of wiggle room here. What ends up happening is that the top tube of the smaller frame slopes more steeply from the head tube to where it intersects with the seat tube. When standover is measured at some point in front of the saddle, this very easily can mean that because of the angle of that top tube, it can be higher than a larger frame that will have a longer top tube that slopes less steeply to the seat tube. That slope will be even steeper if the manufacturer makes the top tube of the smaller frame intersect at the seat tube at a lower position.

You seem to continue to fail to understand that standover clearance is NOT a fit dimension. Again, I reiterate that this does not invalidate your desire to have as much as you can, but standover means absolutely nothing when you are riding a bike. Fit dimensions of a frame are specifically about riding the bike, not crashing it or sitting on the top tube bullshitting (or posing) at the trailhead. I can also guarantee that anyone, regardless of their standover clearance, can have clearance problems if they crash or stumble on the bike in a specific way. All bets are off with what can happen in a crash, so trying to choose frame geometry based on what might happen if you crash in a specific way starts diving into the realm of making things more difficult for yourself than you need to make them.

 

[jannmayer]

Many frames use the same rear triangle for all sizes, and this influences the shock placement. There isn't a lot of room to move the shock around. Smaller frames end up with larger standovers in order to fit that in, and large frames can have lower standovers as a result.

Since stack doesn't usually grow as fast as thee reach when the size increases, top tubes on smaller frames will often be more steeply sloped. Standover is measured ahead of the bottom bracket, so this increased slope likely explains why some small frames have a greater standover than medium frames.

Some suspension designs allow for more flexibility than others.

 

[bbgobie]

It has always been true that bike fits get weirder the farther you deviate from the most common medium and large frame sizes.

it has always been true that bike manufacturers do not consistently change all dimensions on a frame when changing frame sizes. When looking at full suspension bikes, the frame must fit the parts needed for the rear suspension. A manufacturer is not going to change the whole rear suspension design just for smaller frames so they can have more standover clearance. Chances are, they only have access to a limited number of rear suspension designs anyway because of licensing agreements, intellectual property, and whatnot. It also costs a lot of money to move parts around to get the characteristics they want.

When it comes to why the standover of a smaller frame size might actually be higher than a larger frame size, the simple answer here is geometry. Those smaller frames are shorter in length than larger frames. HOWEVER, the front end is probably not any lower (or much lower). The fork dimensions are going to be the same for all sizes of a given model. Some manufacturers adjust headtube length by frame size, but many do not. But even when they do, there's not a whole lot of wiggle room here. What ends up happening is that the top tube of the smaller frame slopes more steeply from the head tube to where it intersects with the seat tube. When standover is measured at some point in front of the saddle, this very easily can mean that because of the angle of that top tube, it can be higher than a larger frame that will have a longer top tube that slopes less steeply to the seat tube. That slope will be even steeper if the manufacturer makes the top tube of the smaller frame intersect at the seat tube at a lower position.

You seem to continue to fail to understand that standover clearance is NOT a fit dimension. Again, I reiterate that this does not invalidate your desire to have as much as you can, but standover means absolutely nothing when you are riding a bike. Fit dimensions of a frame are specifically about riding the bike, not crashing it or sitting on the top tube bullshitting (or posing) at the trailhead. I can also guarantee that anyone, regardless of their standover clearance, can have clearance problems if they crash or stumble on the bike in a specific way. All bets are off with what can happen in a crash, so trying to choose frame geometry based on what might happen if you crash in a specific way starts diving into the realm of making things more difficult for yourself than you need to make them.

Hi Harold, thanks, what you're saying about why a S might have a higher stand over than an M does make sense.

Sure, we can agree that stand over isn't a dimension you or most people consider as part of a fit dimension. For me its something I care about. Similarly someone might want 160mm cranks, which until recently no one really cared about. They might have their reasons.

At the end of the day if 2 bikes pedal similarly, behave similarly, specked similarly, priced similarly, and all other intangibles are similar, except 1 has a top tube I can't straddle and 1 has a top tube I can comfortable straddle than the choice is going to be easy.

 

[bbgobie]

Many frames use the same rear triangle for all sizes, and this influences the shock placement. There isn't a lot of room to move the shock around. Smaller frames end up with larger standovers in order to fit that in, and large frames can have lower standovers as a result.

Since stack doesn't usually grow as fast as thee reach when the size increases, top tubes on smaller frames will often be more steeply sloped. Standover is measured ahead of the bottom bracket, so this increased slope likely explains why some small frames have a greater standover than medium frames.

Some suspension designs allow for more flexibility than others.

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense

 

[Harold]

Hi Harold, thanks, what you're saying about why a S might have a higher stand over than an M does make sense.

Sure, we can agree that stand over isn't a dimension you or most people consider as part of a fit dimension. For me its something I care about. Similarly someone might want 160mm cranks, which until recently no one really cared about. They might have their reasons.

At the end of the day if 2 bikes pedal similarly, behave similarly, specked similarly, priced similarly, and all other intangibles are similar, except 1 has a top tube I can't straddle and 1 has a top tube I can comfortable straddle than the choice is going to be easy.

It's not a fit dimension at all if you'd understand what multiple people have tried telling you. That doesn't mean that you aren't allowed to have preferences. Head tube angle isn't a fit dimension, either, but a lot of people have pretty strong preferences about that, too. Same with seat tube angle. Not a fit dimension. But something people develop preferences over. Also chainstay length. Not a fit dimension. But it affects handling and therefore people have preferences. Wheel size is also not a fit dimension for adult bikes (it technically isn't for kids bikes, either, but it's used as a proxy for frame size, since kids' bike frame sizes aren't really measured out the way they are for adult bikes). But it also affects handling and people develop preferences.

 

[bbgobie]

I don't think I've called it a fit dimension anywhere. If I've caused confusion over that, I'm sorry, but I have a preference for a FS bike with 29" wheels that might be XC/Downcountry ish that tend towards the easier side of stand over if that statement works for you. It sounds like you'd be ok with someone having a preference for a certain head tube angle range, or chainstay length, so I'm not sure why this would be any different.

If I'm absolutely not allowed to in your opinion be concerned about this measurement, probably best for both of us to move on lol.
👍