I am wondering if there are any similar suggestions/guidelines/generalities when looking at mountain bike fit and sizing as there are with tri bike fit. Are there mountain bikes that are “long and low” or “short and high” or any other similar general paradigms of bike fit when looking at mountain bikes?
My tri bike is a relatively FIST approved position. I do have a past compression fracture in my L3 vertebrae but riding low on the tri bike doesn’t bother me because of the skeletal support. However, being stretched out on a road bike does bother my lower back a bit. So I guess I want to make sure I am avoiding any bike that is too long and low for me where I am constantly feeling stretched out. I am 6’ tall, 32" inseam, generally prefer a bike to fit a bit small as opposed to a little too big. A more upright position on a mtn. bike is a bit more the norm anyway, but I am just looking for suggestions on fit and sizing.
Specifically, I am looking at the two bikes below. LBS is a Trek/Fisher dealer and I’d prefer a hardtail, obviously one is a 29’er and one is not so that throws another variable in. Based on my reading I’d probably lean towards the 29’er, but am unsure how the larger wheels effect the geometry and whether that would be a positive or negative given my limitations. Any tips or suggestions?
http://www.fisherbikes.com/bike/model/paragon
http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/mountain_hardtail/8_series/8000/
On a hardtail, your set up should be closer to a road bike position than a tri bike position (at least, in my opinion). The position should still be relatively compact so you can climb with power, although you’ll obviously be more upright than you would be on a tri bike.
When you go into a “crunch” position (bending your elbows to get lower, not shifting fore or aft on your saddle) your elbows would overlap your knees from a side perspective.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2007/sep07/mtbworlds07/index.php?id=/photos/2007/sep07/mtbworlds07/mtbworlds0711/20070908192127_fw_men_12
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2008/olympics08/index.php?id=/photos/2008/olympics08/38/DSC0104
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2004/olympics04/index.php?id=men_mtb/HermidaOG804-011
I think of Geoff Kabush as someone who has his handlebars set up just a little higher than most (although he’s a little closer to your dimensions at 6’2"):
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2008/olympics08/index.php?id=/photos/2008/olympics08/38/DSC0093
Higher or wider handlebars are supposed to allow for better handling on descents whereas a lower position, or what I’d consider “normal,” is supposed to be better for the ascents. You just have to make a decision based on your own technical skills and racing preferences.
One reason you’ll find the fit closer to your road bike position is the fact that your elbows actually come into play when considering your handlebar height. If your lower back gives you trouble, you may have the bars too low (your elbows would be locked out and feel a bit stretched if this were the case) or too high (too much elbow bend results in more pressure on your lower back).
Saddle height is pretty straightforward, and saddle fore/aft position is just a question of where you turn over the most power. You’ll note that having your saddle forward (like on a tri bike) will feel less powerful, particularly on climbs.
I am wondering if there are any similar suggestions/guidelines/generalities when looking at mountain bike fit and sizing as there are with tri bike fit. Are there mountain bikes that are “long and low” or “short and high” or any other similar general paradigms of bike fit when looking at mountain bikes?
Mountain bike geometries are more variable than tri bike geometry. Specifically it often comes down to personal preference, terrain ridden and the kind of riding you are doing. For example a bike the the Cannondale Scalpel meant for XC racing will tend to run longer top tubes, lower bottom brackets and a lower front end with a flat bar than a trail bike like Cannondale’s Rize with longer travel suspension and slacker angles. The important thing to remember when looking at geometry is that on a full suspension bike when you sit on it the suspension will compress and change the angles.
I tended to run a little more upright than some when I was racing (NORBA semi-pro) ala Kabush, with about 1" drop to the bars, but we tend to have more technical riding terrain than most in Arizona, I found it helped both climbing and descending for me at least. World cup pro’s generally run very low handlebar heights, but their courses are typically not very technical.
Kevin
Thanks for the lesson! So if I read this correctly, someone a bit more novice like myself may prefer slightly higher handlebars for better handling on descents? It would seem a slightly higher front end would also be less stressful on my lower back. To be honest, I am not planning any super-technical riding, some hard-packed trails, mild x-c type stuff, possible some adventure races, off-road duathlons and then just some road rides in the snow and crappy weather of northeast winters.
I guess what I am wondering if different manufactures trend towards different geometry “schools” like they do with tri bikes. Are there some manufacturers bikes who I should look towards or others I should definitely stay away from? Would the Fisher 29’er, based on its geometry be a good fit? What size should I look at?
Ok, so I seem to gather that higher handlebars may benefit someone like me who has a little less technical ability, I would think this would also be more comfortable for my lower back as opposed to being low and stretched out.
I am really only looking at hardtails, specifically the two I posted and am just wondering if in looking at those two anything jumps out about them. Like if a tri pro who previously rode low and steep all of the sudden got a contract riding a bike with a slack STA and high headtube you would think “What the hell…”
Specifically the Fisher 29’er, based on its geometry, does it seem like it would be a good fit for someone like myself or is there something I am missing? Most people seem to advocate going with the 29’er, I just want to make sure that does lead to any geometry irregularities that may make me uncomfortable on the bike or anything like that. At 6’, but someone who prefers a bike to fit a little small as opposed to too big, what size should I get on first?
The whole 26’er vs. 29’er things is a completely different (but extensive) debate. Yes, the tubes are going to be angled differently and your handling is going to be different, but, with regard to physiological comfort/performance, the important thing for you is that you can your seat and handlebars up correctly in relation to your pedals.
In this case, both bikes are manufactured at the same plant by the same company (Trek runs the GF brand), so you should be able to set up both bikes to accommodate similar riding positions.
I don’t have a lot of experience with 29’ers, so I can’t tell you about handling. You ought to see if you can find a shop that will rent a 29’er out to you for a test ride before you make a decision, because it’s my understanding that they really do feel different in terms of handling (which is a bigger deal off-road).
Specifically the Fisher 29’er, based on its geometry, does it seem like it would be a good fit for someone like myself or is there something I am missing? Most people seem to advocate going with the 29’er, I just want to make sure that does lead to any geometry irregularities that may make me uncomfortable on the bike or anything like that. At 6’, but someone who prefers a bike to fit a little small as opposed to too big, what size should I get on first?
So if I read this correctly, someone a bit more novice like myself may prefer slightly higher handlebars for better handling on descents?
Almost all mountain bikes have riser bars on them anymore, so chances are your stock set up will be high/wide enough.
I did know that Trek runs the GF brand, just didn’t know if these specific models had any particular fit characteristics that I should pay attention to. As someone who has been looking into hardtails for a few months now I have probably read a million articles and forum threads about the 26 vs 29 debate and it seems like 29ers get the nod in general for being able to roll over some of the smaller stuff (which, for a person like my with lower back issues if the ride was a little less jarring, seems like a good thing). Some say the handling can be a little slower but I don’t really plan on doing anything overall technical where that would be a major concern of mine.
Any recommendation on what size I should get on first at 6’? I know road/tri bike sizing, but not so much mtb.
I only looked at the trek. But it sounds like you’d want the 17.5" medium. But just like any other bike you should test ride and let the bike store ‘expert’ weigh in on the fit.
The shorter reach may not be better for descending. Being more upright, all else considered will help. But if you get higher up via a shorter wheelbase all you’ve done is decreased your moment of inertia and you can make it more likely to go over your handlebars.
Besides, a longer and lower front end makes climbing easier.
There’s a lot to consider. If you become an avid mt biker you will most likely want to change bikes in a year or two but you need a starter bike and there’s no way you can know right now so make a solid purchase and go from there.
I’m concerned about your statement that road riding hurts your back. Mountain biking is a lot like riding a road bike on the top bar in terms of positioning. Even if you go with a somewhat more upright fit than that, which is perfectly acceptable, being more vertical could actually be worse because a higher percentage of your body weight is carried by the spine.
Gary Fisher runs Genesis geometry, they run a longer top tube and a custom fork with greater offset to reduce trail and compensate for the longer front end. They are designed to be run with a shorter stem, versus the more traditional geometry of the Trek. You would be able to achieve your position on either bike. In my experience the GF geometry makes a bike more stable by putting you more behind the front wheel on the downhills, it does handle a little slower in the tight and twisties, so a lot depends on your intended use, you couldnt go wrong with either.
I would also suggest trying the 29’er. They do ride better IMO than any 26" wheel hardtail, at 5’6" I have a tough time getting the handlebar height on a 9’er without funky down stems, but at your height you shouldnt have an issue
Kevin
Any recommendation on what size I should get on first at 6’? I know road/tri bike sizing, but not so much mtb.
I think the general idea is about a 21" for a 6’ guy, but you said you run a bit smaller, right? Maybe you ought to look at a 19".
Here’s the Trek page with the general size guide:
http://www.trekbikes.com/faq/questions.php?questionid=63
You could always do your measurements on the fit calculator on competitive cyclist:
http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCM?PAGE=FIT_CALCULATOR_INTRO
I’m concerned about your statement that road riding hurts your back. Mountain biking is a lot like riding a road bike on the top bar in terms of positioning.
Riding on the tops of a road bar is fine for me. Being on the hoods is a little less comfortable and in the drops even less comfortable (and this was on a bike that was probably too low in the front end for me anyway). Even with the bike being a little too long and low I was fine on the tops, but not when I was stretched out too much. Does that make sense?
the GF geometry makes a bike more stable by putting you more behind the front wheel on the downhills, it does handle a little slower in the tight and twisties, so a lot depends on your intended use, you couldnt go wrong with either.
This is good info, thanks. I am not overly concerned about the bike handling a little slower in tight conditions as that really isn’t a worry of mine. As I said, mostly hard-packed trails, some adventure racing, things like that, nothing super technical. So with that in mind, I’d gladly trade the increased stability for a little bit less responsiveness.
Thanks for your help on this topic a while back, hopefully you don’t mind if I pick your brain once more. Let’s say my budget was around $3,000 instead of $2,000 and I was looking into some XC full-suspension rides. What do you think of the two bikes below?
I know the Specialized Epic is sort of the benchmark for the FS XC bike category, but at roughly the same price point the Trek seems to have a better component spec and additionally, my LBS is a Trek dealer so I could probably save a few bucks on the price and also give the business to a local shop.
http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/mountain_full_suspension/top_fuel/topfuel8/
http://www.specialized.com/bc/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=42012&eid=99
I would say the Trek would be a great bike and you wouldnt lose out on anything versus the Epic. The Epic uses the brain shock, but that isnt to everybody’s taste. If you can get the Trek for less and more importantly support your LBS I say go for it.
Kevin
And in terms of geometry and frame quality it would be a good investment as well you think? I know Trek just remodelled their Top Fuel line and from what I have seen the new design gets pretty good reviews.
Thanks again for your help.
I havent had a chance to ride the new Top Fuel, but the reviews are good and the geometry is middle of the road XC so there is no reason it shouldnt work just as well as the old Fuel. It was Lance’s choice for Leadville!
Kevin