# Scott Scale - 26 vs 29 and frame size



## jsamuelson (May 14, 2012)

I'm facing a dilemma, bought a 26" Scale 70 in XL, have really enjoyed riding it a couple of times on the flat, but unavoidably now think it's slightly too large and I'd be happier on a Scale Team/Comp in L.

What do you think, effectively a beginner so no ingrained preference either way, would it be better to start out on a 29er?

I have lurked and read countless threads in the forums…

I'm just over 6'1" with a self-measured inseam of 33".

I've already swapped the XL's stock 110mm stem for an 80mm. It's better but still feel really on top of the bike, it feels large.

Also, using the heel-on-pedal rule I don't seem to have nearly as much seat post showing as in just about any photo of a rider on whichever size bike I've looked at. I have around 5 1/2" of seat post exposed to the rails.

Standover is a little closer than feels comfortable with the XL. Not touching but definitely closer than I like hard metal objects to be!

I tried an Aspect in L, but that seemed smallish (I think?) - but the large Scale seems to be a better fit?

Model/Seatpost/eTT

Aspect L - 19.7" - 23.0" - felt too small
Scale 26 L - 18.9" - 24.0"
Scale 29 L - 18.9" - 24.4"
Scale 26 XL - 20.9" - 25.2" - feels too big

Seems like I could or should have the seat higher, there should be plenty of tube to go before the mark on the L?

Any advice much appreciated. Perhaps I am over thinking it but I'd like to get the right bike now to last a few years. I think I can still persuade the LBS to change it for me.

Cheers!


----------



## pfox90 (Aug 8, 2010)

Get the bike that feels the most comfortable. If it feels too small, then it is. Sounds like you're between the Scale models then. The fad seems to be going towards 29" wheels.... not too many negatives but for beginners they are a great option. Will help increase traction, maintain speeds, work as a suspension and roll over log piles. The 26" is better suited for better cornering, somewhat easier climbing (this depends), and it will teach you the fundamentals of choosing lines and better riding mechanics.

Again, the decision comes down to your terrain, riding style and the bike that feels best to YOU.


----------



## jsamuelson (May 14, 2012)

I'm between sizes…LBS guy thinks the XL suits, I don't feel comfortable on it. He won't have an L for me to try for a week or so until he gets new stock, and if I want a 29er then I will probably have to order it so need to be pretty sure of myself, which I'm not…

My problem is how to judge whether I'm comfortable?

Terrain I will be riding on, mostly flat and easy trails, as it's a family thing - but want to be able to tackle something more adventurous when and if. Nothing extreme for sure.

I think I've already persuaded myself the XL is too large…

So far people in other threads seem to be half "XL w/short stem - longer is better" and half "get the smallest frame you fit on" - and more generally "between sizes get the smaller".


----------



## pfox90 (Aug 8, 2010)

You can always make the smaller bike feel bigger.. you can't make the bigger bike feel that much smaller.


----------



## jsamuelson (May 14, 2012)

So I am learning! I normally do more research before pulling the trigger on large purchases but didn't this time…the shop is being quite friendly about it (so far).


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Leaving aside 26" vs. 29", judging size of a bike is tricky. Frame size is really all about whether or not you can make it fit you.

First of all, don't worry about how much seat post is showing. That's as much a product of frame geometry and sometimes people posing their bikes as it is of correct fit. About the only thing that would make me question a frame size would be if the saddle is level with the top of the head tube. That would mean that if you like some saddle-to-bars drop, and lots of people like at least a little bit, you're SOL.

Anyway, here's a link.

How to Fit a Bicycle

Try to get the fit of your bike dialed in. If you go through his article and you still think you want your bars closer to you, swap for the Large. Once you're swapping anyway - I was impressed by a 29er I test-rode, and I think that for me, a 29" hardtail would be a better platform. That doesn't mean it's true for you, or for everybody. So I'd say, consider it if you decide your XL is too big for you. If you find you can dial in the XL and you're happy on it, go ride and be happy.


----------



## pfox90 (Aug 8, 2010)

After looking I think the 24.4 TT would be a great in the middle of your too big/too small bikes.

If you're still not sure if it is fitting you properly and the guy at the bike shop says it fits well... take it to another bike shop and get a second opinion?


----------



## jsamuelson (May 14, 2012)

I must have read through that link ten times already!! It's excellent and thanks for posting it.

I would say saddle is level with the top of the stem currently. There is certainly never going to be much of a drop, the seat is about as high as it can go for me to get to the pedals with the recommended slight knee bend.

I have read that you want to feel "in" the bike and not "on" the bike.

For me, I'm definitely feeling perched "on" but maybe that's just because I'm a newbie?


----------



## jsamuelson (May 14, 2012)

pfox90 said:


> After looking I think the 24.4 TT would be a great in the middle of your too big/too small bikes.


That's the way I am leaning, it seems a good middle ground!

Just looking for validation from the good people of this forum&#8230; :thumbsup:


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

jsamuelson said:


> I must have read through that link ten times already!! It's excellent and thanks for posting it.
> 
> I would say saddle is level with the top of the stem currently. There is certainly never going to be much of a drop, the seat is about as high as it can go for me to get to the pedals with the recommended slight knee bend.
> 
> ...


"In" vs. "on" is also "flickable" vs. not flickable. You would never expect to feel "in" a pair of skis. Demo a 29er or a long-travel FS bike and see if you can feel a difference. See if you even like it. When I tried a 29er hardtails, I didn't feel particularly "in" the bike. It felt smoother and the traction seemed more consistent. I liked that.  I've demoed a few FS 29ers, and I guess maybe I felt "in" the bike. I also felt like I was driving a monster truck, and it was a lot of work to pop up the front wheel, get the damned things to turn, etc. I was not a fan. I'm 5" shorter than you, so keep in mind what they say about opinions.

Most stems that ship with a mountain bike have a six degree angle and you can install them either up or down. Stems are available with a seventeen degree angle. So between a -17 degree stem and flat handlebars, you should have some ability to make your grips lower, should you want to. You can even invert a riser bar.

Maybe pick up a 70mm stem and see if it improves the fit on your bike. Handlebar width plays into this stuff too. The body position that makes a correctly-fitted bike feel stable, without being an endo machine or having too light a front wheel, goes with a stem somewhere in the 90-120 (or so, not sure what the upper limit is) range with narrower bars, and with a 60-70mm stem with wider bars. Having your hands further apart means you need to be closer to the bars to reach them, so it has a big effect on where the bars should be.

Do you feel like you have a lot of weight on your hands? Do you tend to bend your elbows? Is your stem already flipped up, and at the top of its spacer stack? Can you post a pic of the bike?

Finally, I don't care how many times you've read the link... have you tried following his process?


----------



## divideoverflow (Apr 25, 2012)

I also posted in the Scott forum in your thread, but I'll add it here too with some small additions:

I think you should get the Large Scale 29er, and you'll probably be more than happy with it.

The Scale is larger than the Aspect for the same size. The Aspect medium felt too cramped for me, but the Scale Comp 29er medium felt perfect! I tried a Scale 29er large, and it was too big for me (seat all the way down), so I went with the medium and am extremely happy with my choice!

I had a similar problem where I was on a 21" Hardrock 29er, and it was borderline too big. If in doubt, do a size smaller. You can always put on a longer stem. It is funny though, the Hardrock was ridable, but I just felt a little too short (with the seat all the way down my legs were actually in the right position, but I had no wiggle room)

I personally like the 29er much better than my old 29er hardtail. It is more fun for me, and easier to roll over roots (which are plentiful on my trails).


----------



## jsamuelson (May 14, 2012)

> "In" vs. "on" is also "flickable" vs. not flickable. You would never expect to feel "in" a pair of skis. Demo a 29er or a long-travel FS bike and see if you can feel a difference. See if you even like it. When I tried a 29er hardtails, I didn't feel particularly "in" the bike. It felt smoother and the traction seemed more consistent. I liked that. I've demoed a few FS 29ers, and I guess maybe I felt "in" the bike. I also felt like I was driving a monster truck, and it was a lot of work to pop up the front wheel, get the damned things to turn, etc. I was not a fan. I'm 5" shorter than you, so keep in mind what they say about opinions.


Smooth is good. I am going to try and find a 29er to demo for sure.



> Most stems that ship with a mountain bike have a six degree angle and you can install them either up or down. Stems are available with a seventeen degree angle. So between a -17 degree stem and flat handlebars, you should have some ability to make your grips lower, should you want to. You can even invert a riser bar.


The shop have changed it to a 6 degree 80mm stem to see how that works. I would say better but still feel uncomfortable.



> Maybe pick up a 70mm stem and see if it improves the fit on your bike. Handlebar width plays into this stuff too. The body position that makes a correctly-fitted bike feel stable, without being an endo machine or having too light a front wheel, goes with a stem somewhere in the 90-120 (or so, not sure what the upper limit is) range with narrower bars, and with a 60-70mm stem with wider bars. Having your hands further apart means you need to be closer to the bars to reach them, so it has a big effect on where the bars should be.


I'm definitely trying to determine the correct frame size before investing in new handlebars! Just the stock ones with a shorter stem so far. There seems to be a potentially infinite combination of stem, sweep, width, angle and height. :eekster:



> Do you feel like you have a lot of weight on your hands? Do you tend to bend your elbows? Is your stem already flipped up, and at the top of its spacer stack? Can you post a pic of the bike?


Yes, I do feel like I have a fair amount of my bodyweight supported on my hands. Not painfully so. Elbows are now slightly bent, whereas with the stock stem they were very straight.

Will try and post a pic.



> Finally, I don't care how many times you've read the link... have you tried following his process?


To a certain extent. I will try and do it more carefully and see if anything changes. I haven't for example, played with seat angle at all as I have read most places that it should be level, usually.

Thanks for taking the time, by the way.


----------



## jsamuelson (May 14, 2012)

divideoverflow said:


> I also posted in the Scott forum in your thread, but I'll add it here too with some small additions:
> 
> I think you should get the Large Scale 29er, and you'll probably be more than happy with it.
> 
> ...


My problem to begin with was that I could not try a Scale in L, only the Aspect. Subsequently of course, I have learned that sizes, even between bikes from the same manufacturer, can be entirely different.

My seat is certainly not all the way down, but there is *plenty* of room for it to come up. There is a scale on the rear of the post, I'm at 3 and a bit and full extension (i.e. min insertion) is 10 (I'm assuming these are inches). So I'm 7 inches off the max height. 

What I am hoping the LBS will do will be to agree to order a 29er in L and let me try it and swap if it's a better fit. He didn't seem to be a convert when I asked him about 29ers initially though.


----------



## jsamuelson (May 14, 2012)

Two attachments, one with seat and what I have determined to be a comfortable ride height and one with the seat at maximum extension showing how much higher it can go!


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

In your situation I would choose a L in the Scale 29 range. If you do try some more technical trails your seat position will in many cases come down a little to be confident with the downhills. But I would seriously consider the Elite model if you can stretch for it. Scott upgraded that model to the tuneable top line Reba fork this year to make it an especially good buy. That bike would last you through a lot of skill development.


----------



## jsamuelson (May 14, 2012)

Problem with heading up to Elite level is that puts me in the same price bracket as for example the base Spark 29 FS - which starts to be tempting too!!


----------



## jsamuelson (May 14, 2012)

I just took the seat up to the max on my better half's Aspect, which is a Small, and it didn't feel horrible.

Too small for me, clearly, but it served my purpose in confirming the XL is conversely - just too big.

I have asked the LBS to take this one back and order me up a Scale 29 Team in an L.

Thanks all for helping me make up my mind.


----------



## divideoverflow (Apr 25, 2012)

jsamuelson said:


> I just took the seat up to the max on my better half's Aspect, which is a Small, and it didn't feel horrible.
> 
> Too small for me, clearly, but it served my purpose in confirming the XL is conversely - just too big.
> 
> ...


Haha, that is precisely what I did. Enjoy the large scale, I think it will feel better. If my legs were your length, that is what I would have ended up with.


----------



## jsamuelson (May 14, 2012)

Apparently there are no Scale 29ers left in Europe. At all.


----------



## big terry (Apr 22, 2012)

spark 29s are awesome bikes too. incredibly awesome. if you dont have a pressing reason to stay away from a full suspension bike, i would seriously consider taking one for a ride, and evaluating that as a replacement for the non-existent scale. locking out both front and rear works well and makes for a nice ride on the flats, but having the full squish available is very nice in the rooty, rocky stuff when you do decide to go offroad.


----------



## jsamuelson (May 14, 2012)

There is a Spark 29 Comp available. No pressing reason not to go for it other than it's the entry level without the Twinloc and already a bit more cash than I wanted to spend!

I'm thinking about it though…


----------



## jsamuelson (May 14, 2012)

On the basis that I should be out riding my new bike as supposed to talking about it, I have ordered a replacement Scale 70 in size L for Friday afternoon…everything else was delivery sometime in June and no 29ers at all.

Done!


----------



## jsamuelson (May 14, 2012)

Just to top and tail my thread:

Picked up my Scale 70 in L today - taken it for a little shake-down ride - this is the right size.

I have more room under the jewels, and I feel I have more control over the bike.

(having said all that I suspect that if I was a proper XC rider that the Scale is designed for, the XL would be the right size for a stretched out racing position, but I'm not, so it's not)

Holiday weekend here, looking forward to getting outside!


----------



## Tonito (Mar 22, 2012)

*T*

:::9


----------

