# 5'11" tall == 19.5" frame?



## brettr2 (Sep 29, 2009)

I have a Trek Fuel EX 17.5" bike. I'm 5'11" tall. The only other Fuel EX in the store when I bought this bike was a 16.5". The 16.5" was too small as my arms were not quite stretching out far enough...but not terribly noticeable either. With the 17.5", I get full extension on my arms and legs when the crank is at the same angle as the seat post. Of course, you can get full extension on nearly any bike by just adjusting the seat height. Standing over the bike, I can pick it up with around 2" of clearance from wheel to ground.

I'm about to get a Trek Top Fuel. There aren't any in my area to sit on and try for sizing. But there are Fuel EXs and those should be close enough. According to sizing charts, I need a 19.5" frame or 18.5" at the least. That's a full two inch difference from where I am now. Seems I would be way too stretched out on a 19.5" frame. The 17.5" seems to work fine for me but that's all I've ever ridden. What am I missing here?


----------



## arkon11 (Jul 26, 2009)

To be honest I'm 5'11" aswell, and I used to a ride a Trek 6000 hardtail that was a 19.5. It felt great and all, but I always thought it was a tad to big. 

Needless to say that I broke the frame (manufacture defect, the chainstays cracked), and I got it replaced, but I opted for a 18.5" frame and I like it a WHOLE lot more. I just feel it fits me better and is a bit more nimble. I'm not sure if I would downsize to an 17.5, but I feel that an 18.5 is the sweet spot!

If you like to ride pretty passively and more XC stuff, by all means get the 19.5 and stretch out, but if you like it a little more aggressive, then go with the 18.5


----------



## ProjectDan35 (Jul 19, 2010)

I'm 5' 11" and I ride a 19inch frame. A tad bit too big, 18.5 would have been better, but they didn't have that size.


----------



## Kona0197 (Oct 19, 2004)

What do you guys recommend for a guy with a short inseam and 5'9"?


----------



## Bilirubin (Mar 6, 2010)

Shoe inserts.


----------



## arkon11 (Jul 26, 2009)

I'd still go with an 18.5 and a short crankset lol


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Both son and I are 6 ft. He is shorter legged than I am and I have a 34 inseam. We both ride 21.5. He races, I coach.

Do a really fast downhill on the 19.5, then on the 18.5.


----------



## brettr2 (Sep 29, 2009)

Thanks. I can probably find an 18.5" to size up.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

brettr2 said:


> I have a Trek Fuel EX 17.5" bike. I'm 5'11" tall. The only other Fuel EX in the store when I bought this bike was a 16.5". The 16.5" was too small as my arms were not quite stretching out far enough...but not terribly noticeable either. With the 17.5", I get full extension on my arms and legs when the crank is at the same angle as the seat post. Of course, you can get full extension on nearly any bike by just adjusting the seat height. Standing over the bike, I can pick it up with around 2" of clearance from wheel to ground.
> 
> I'm about to get a Trek Top Fuel. There aren't any in my area to sit on and try for sizing. But there are Fuel EXs and those should be close enough. According to sizing charts, I need a 19.5" frame or 18.5" at the least. That's a full two inch difference from where I am now. Seems I would be way too stretched out on a 19.5" frame. The 17.5" seems to work fine for me but that's all I've ever ridden. What am I missing here?


The effective top tube length is much more important than the seat tube length. Generally, ride the smallest frame you are comfortable on.


----------



## John Kuhl (Dec 10, 2007)

I'm a little over 6' and all my Treks are 18.5". 

Best, John


----------



## eric1971 (Apr 29, 2004)

I would definitly not go by a sizing chart. You need to ride the bike you are going to buy and see what size is comfortable.


----------



## brettr2 (Sep 29, 2009)

@John Kuhl

Hmmmm, I get the feeling I'll be fairly stretched out on an 18.5". Mostly all I can do is sit on the bike to test sizing since there isn't anywhere to ride it. I don't think I can go wrong with a 17.5" frame but even after sitting on the 18.5" (once I find one), that little bit of sitting isn't going to be enough to know. 

Being a Top Fuel, I want to keep things nimble and agile. That won't be the case if the frame is to big for me, even by a little.


----------



## Heavy Fluid (Mar 31, 2011)

I am 5'11 3/4" with a short inseam/long torso. I am currently on a 19" Large, but was on a 19" Large 29er, and it felt huge. A medium frame just felt small, and I looked like Donkey Kong on it.

I would suggest testing any bike before purchasing, to make sure that the frame is right for your body and riding style.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Kona0197 said:


> What do you guys recommend for a guy with a short inseam and 5'9"?


5'9 and two inch inseam here  
I opted for the 17inch frame in my kona, the 18 by all measurments should have fit me perfect, but I did not like the way it turned for me, now while the 17 is a bit small it works great (I really like the turning) and I am going to extend the handlebars this year and that should solve it all for ME at least, as noted, all a person can do is take them for a test ride and see how it works for YOU.


----------



## rlouder (Jun 26, 2007)

The geometry charts for the current 17.5" models show that the Top Fuel has a .2" shorter ett than an EX. Don't know if a 23.0" ett would be long enough for someone 5-11.


----------



## onus (Apr 5, 2011)

Heck i'm about 6'1" or 6'2" and i got a 19 inch bike from bikes direct. I used a tap measure and the next size up is a bit to large, and i want to be able to get on the bike comfortably. I have a large frame bike in the garage and i don't like trying to get on it. Bike direct posts standover heights so thats what i measured.


----------



## nachomc (Apr 26, 2006)

Depends on your inseam.


----------



## b-kul (Sep 20, 2009)

i was 6'1'' the this winter i shrunk to 6' and ride a 19''. a top fuel is a race bike so they may recomend a larger size for a more "racey" feel.


----------



## gregnash (Jul 17, 2010)

I am 6' with an ~31" and I went with the 19.5" Inbred with a 90mm stem. To me it feels great and coming from a 18" FS 26", this feels like it fits me much, MUCH better. Talking with my LBS they said the same thing as Shiggy, with the 29er the cockpit changes so you need to be more worried about the ETT than the standover height. I did try and 18" FELT Nine Trail and it felt, ok, not small but not quite right either. What I did as I was building my Inbred was find something that had a very similar geometry and test ride that, then base the feel off that.


----------



## hdparrish (Jan 24, 2008)

If I picked up a Trek Fuel EX series, it'd have an 18.5-inch frame.

I'm 6-foot tall and that frame size seems like it was made for most over 5-10 and under 6-1 or 6-2.


----------



## Sarguy (Sep 25, 2010)

shiggy said:


> The effective top tube length is much more important than the seat tube length. Generally, ride the smallest frame you are comfortable on.


Good advice.:thumbsup: Would have saved me from giving my son a 19.5 that I bought for myself. (He's 4 inches taller than me). I now ride a 17.5 and couldn't be happier.


----------



## dirt farmer (Mar 28, 2005)

I'm 5'10" (guessing), and the 19 fits me perfectly. So does my 19.5 hybrid road bike.


----------



## brettr2 (Sep 29, 2009)

One other thing I'm just now finding out is there are virtual and actual frame sizes. That's confusing. You guys all talking about virtual or actual?

I've been saying 17.5", which is what I own. That is the actual size. Virtual is 18.5". What is Trek referring to on their site: http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/mountain_full_suspension/top_fuel/topfuel99ssl/...when you click the geometry tab.


----------



## JonathanGennick (Sep 15, 2006)

brettr2 said:


> One other thing I'm just now finding out is there are virtual and actual frame sizes. That's confusing. You guys all talking about virtual or actual?


I hate that actual/virtual business that Trek has going. All it does is confuse things. Makes it a heck of a lot harder to shop around on eBay for used bikes too, because you can't really be sure what size people are naming in their listings.


----------



## Guy.Ford (Oct 28, 2009)

im 6'4" and currently ride a 19" frame with 24.5 tt. My next bike will likely be an 18 and have the same TT length or maybe .5" shorter. As long as I can get full seat extension, Im good.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

brettr2 said:


> One other thing I'm just now finding out is there are virtual and actual frame sizes. That's confusing. You guys all talking about virtual or actual?
> 
> I've been saying 17.5", which is what I own. That is the actual size. Virtual is 18.5". What is Trek referring to on their site: http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/mountain_full_suspension/top_fuel/topfuel99ssl/...when you click the geometry tab.


The actual size is how the bike fits. No idea what a virtual size would be.

Using the seat tube length as the size is traditional and mostly misleading. As long as you can set the saddle height correctly, seat tube length is meaningless.

I also think many people in this thread are confusing their pant inseam length with their cycling inseam (floor to pubic arch). Or they are all built like gorillas.


----------

