# LBS fitted me but the top tube pushes against my jewels



## JDfromBR (Mar 5, 2012)

I'm 5'11, 32" inseam. My LBS fitted me for Trek Marlin and Felt Nine Trail. 19" and 19.5" frames respectively. They feel good when I test rode them, but my concern is that my legs are a tad too short while standing over. Am I in the wrong for thinking this bike is too big for me and could result in some serious pain if I need to get off the bike quickly, or land funny? 

I am a newb. I have an old Trek 820 16.5" that is clearly too small for me. Next time I go i will try the 17 and 17.5 but I suspect they will be small. I'd regret having a bike too small during the numerous rooty 6' to 12' drops that are on my local trail. I have a hard time on my 820 and have crashed a few times after getting thrown off balance by large roots, but that could be because it is fully rigid. 

Any tips, advice, or other models to look at?


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*Missing and apostrophe or two?*



JDfromBR said:


> I'm 5'11, 32" inseam. My LBS fitted me for Trek Marlin and Felt Nine Trail. 19" and 19.5" frames respectively. They feel good when I test rode them, but my concern is that my legs are a tad too short while standing over. Am I in the wrong for thinking this bike is too big for me and could result in some serious pain if I need to get off the bike quickly, or land funny?
> 
> I am a newb. I have an old Trek 820 16.5" that is clearly too small for me. Next time I go i will try the 17 and 17.5 but I suspect they will be small. I'd regret having a bike too small during the numerous rooty 6' to 12' drops that are on my local trail. I have a hard time on my 820, but that could be because it is fully rigid.
> 
> Any tips, advice, or other models to look at?


Surely you meant 6" to 12" drops, correct?

A 19" or 19.5" sounds close based on what you've given us. I don't think you can go wrong with riding multiple sizes (and models and manufacturers) and determining which one is right for you.

I wouldn't worry too much about stand over height. It's not a very reliable way to determine bike fit.


----------



## JDfromBR (Mar 5, 2012)

Ken in KC said:


> Surely you meant 6" to 12" drops, correct?


No, I probably don't have the correct terminology. I live in a very flat area, so the trails cross through old creek beds that dried up and thick tree lines. This means that the main features of the trail is that it has "bowls" where you drop down and then have to keep momentum to go back up the other side. The downward portion of the "bowls" are very steep and are full of roots. Like I said, I'm a noob and don't really know a whole lot about what I'm talking about, so bare with me.


----------



## john#21 (May 21, 2012)

We are about the same height. I bought a cobia about a month ago. I tried the 17 and 19 and went with the 17 for pretty much that reason. I have around 100 or so miles on it so far and I have no regrets.


----------



## JDfromBR (Mar 5, 2012)

john#21 said:


> We are about the same height. I bought a cobia about a month ago. I tried the 17 and 19 and went with the 17 for pretty much that reason. I have around 100 or so miles on it so far and I have no regrets.


That's encouraging. What's your height and inseam (or pant length if you wear the "proper" length)?


----------



## john#21 (May 21, 2012)

5,11 with ~ 31.5.


----------



## Dirtoyz (Jun 4, 2012)

I'm 5'11" with a 30" inseam, and I currently run an 18". I've been looking at some 29er's and out of the 4 shops I've checked so far only one even mentioned stand over height. I seem to favor the medeum frames that I've looked at.


----------



## john#21 (May 21, 2012)

It's funny in a coincidental kind of way but I was riding a trek 820 before the cobia. It was the 21 inch and was too big for me.


----------



## Yogii (Jun 5, 2008)

No problem!!!!! Just touching your jewels, no problem. Problem when Louey is on the left and Ralphy is on the right and you can't get them both on one side! When you crash, other parts will hit first...


----------



## vk45de (Feb 1, 2009)

If you stand flatfooted and still have like 2" clearance (which I suspect you do), it should be pretty safe.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

Getting a good riding position is essential.
In most MTB riding, having some standover is Nice-to-Have, but not essential.

In a weak moment, years ago, I got myself a full suspension bike. I don't have ANY clearance when I stand over that bike. I've had my share of unexpected dismounts on that bike and the top tube has never been an issue. I have had a couple of encounters with the rear of the stem, though, when going over the bar on a too low trajectory.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

JDfromBR said:


> I'm 5'11, 32" inseam. My LBS fitted me for Trek Marlin and Felt Nine Trail. 19" and 19.5" frames respectively. *They feel good when I test rode them, *but my concern is that my legs are a tad too short while standing over. Am I in the wrong for thinking this bike is too big for me and could result in some serious pain if I need to get off the bike quickly, or land funny?
> 
> I am a newb. I have an old Trek 820 16.5" that is clearly too small for me. Next time I go i will try the 17 and 17.5 but I suspect they will be small. I'd regret having a bike too small during the numerous rooty 6' to 12' drops that are on my local trail. I have a hard time on my 820 and have crashed a few times after getting thrown off balance by large roots, but that could be because it is fully rigid.
> 
> Any tips, advice, or other models to look at?


Stand over isn't the way to fit a bike- that was old and wrong school. Bolded is what's important


----------



## Colo Springs E (Dec 20, 2009)

I have short legs (30" inseam)... nearly every bike I stand over, the top tube is still sort of up in my package. However, I can still lift the front handlebars and pull the bike a couple/few inches off the floor before it 'stops.' I've never had issues with any bike fitting me that way. I think stretch (from how your seated to how far you have to reach out to the handlbars) and how comfortable in general the cockpit feels are bigger concerns.

I've been riding forever, but not nearly as knowledgeable as many folks here are... that said, in my opinion, if you're a 'tweener,' I'd usually recommend going a little small over going a little large. A small frame (in my experience) is easier to whip around, maneuver obstacles, etc.


----------



## BShow (Jun 15, 2006)

Standover isn't necessary at all. I suspect that you will very rarely, if ever, dismount to a flat footed stance over the top tube. Proper bike fit while riding is the most important thing. If the shop knows how to fit a bike, and I assume that they do, then you should be good to go. Dont even think about the lack of clearance... if your out riding and have to bail or dismount, your naturally going to lean over to a side or maybe come off the back anyway.


----------



## joeinchi (Jun 19, 2010)

I would agree that _fit while pedaling_ takes priority BUT I know what you mean since I've been blessed with shortish legs, as well. Not only is _package_ clearance an issue but you'll feel the nose of the saddle poking your lower back every time you stand over the bike. And aggressive cornering and out of the saddle pedaling could be compromised with a bike that features a high top tube.

The Trek Marlin and Felt Nine you tried both have a traditional top tube design, i.e. straight. Perhaps you'd be better off with a frame using a _dipped_ top tube like the Jamis Trail? It offers better clearance without compromising reach.


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

Good stuff so far.
I'd have to agree that stand over has little to nothing to do with bike fit, but I just don't get how it's not important in general. Guess it's not important to me if other people have enough room, but it is certainly important for me that I do.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

You could consider a bike with 26" wheels...
The front end of the top tube is lower on them.


----------



## joeinchi (Jun 19, 2010)

If you're only looking at 29s, then consider a Giant Talon ... standover is about an inch shorter than the Felt


----------



## Things and Stuff (Jun 5, 2012)

For downhill inclines is it generally better to get a bike that's al title too long for you, or a little short? Which one helps keep you from going over the bars?


----------



## joeinchi (Jun 19, 2010)

The simple answer is a shorter top tube might do a better job of keeping you from going over the bars.

But it's not that simple. A short top tube paired with long handlebar stem may move your center of gravity further forward than a long top tube/short stem combination, i.e. same reach but different fore/aft weight balance.

There are other considerations, as well. Riding technique, frame geometry (less upright head tube), taller head tube, heavier construction, tires, wheels, suspension, etc. which you should consider if you want to ride downhill. You may want to peruse the Downhill forum for threads devoted to this topic, like this:

http://forums.mtbr.com/downhill-freeride/getting-into-dh-mtb-help-792857.html


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

theMeat said:


> Good stuff so far.
> I'd have to agree that stand over has little to nothing to do with bike fit, but I just don't get how it's not important in general. Guess it's not important to me if other people have enough room, but it is certainly important for me that I do.


Standover is only a preference issue like what saddle to buy or which grips to use. It does not fall into the same category as leg extension or reach.

Standover will depend on frame design mostly. I ride a 2003 Stumpjumper FSR and it has insane amounts of standover. My road bike has next to none. They are both comfortable and I ride my road bike on the trails from time to time, even.


----------



## Slozomby (Mar 22, 2012)

if your coming down on the top tube hard enough to hurt your junk, an extra inch of stand over wont make any difference.


----------



## DanZo337 (Jun 4, 2012)

I believe that your crotch is supposed to be clear of the top tube while standing in your riding shoes... That is according to the Jamie manual; It actually stresses that you shouldn't even ride around the corner if there is even a minor touch lol. 

I'm 5'8" with a 30 inseam.... I ended up getting a 15" frame (today actually ) I might've gotten away with a 17 with regular shoes but I'm a Vibram junky


----------



## JonathanGennick (Sep 15, 2006)

theMeat said:


> I'd have to agree that stand over has little to nothing to do with bike fit, but I just don't get how it's not important in general.


Standover has been played up so much in the past that the reaction today is often to go too far in the other direction and poo-poo any concern for it.

Lower standover makes a frame more maneuverable underneath you. My low standover skate-park bike saved my neck one day when I was able to turn the bike sideways under me to avoid a bad fall when I messed up going over the tabletop.

And it is rare, but I did just this weekend come off the seat going straight forward while the front wheel was elevated because of a transition to a hill. I landed on the top tube. It hurt. An extra inch of standover would have prevented several minutes of pain.

I do like to look at effective top tube length first, but I won't ignore standover.


----------



## 22-34 (May 23, 2012)

TwoTone said:


> Stand over isn't the way to fit a bike- that was old and wrong school. Bolded is what's important


Of course the bolded is important but my jewels are even more important to me. If I cannot stand over the bike then what is the point of buying it!


----------



## 22-34 (May 23, 2012)

JonathanGennick said:


> I do like to look at effective top tube length first, but I won't ignore standover.


I look at effective top tube length too, but also look at REACH. Some bikes have slack seat tube angle and therefore very long ETT length, but the REACH on these bikes can be too short.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

22-34 said:


> Of course the bolded is important but my jewels are even more important to me. If I cannot stand over the bike then what is the point of buying it!


I have ridden bikes that fit me in the past where my toes wouldn't even touch the ground when I've been sitting on the TT. it was never a problem. On my current bike, even though the standover is very roomy, I cannot just swing my leg over the bike because the seat sits so high off the ground. I have to modify my behavior a little and it works fine. Stand on the uphill side when mounting it. Stand on the near pedal first before swinging my leg over. Lean the bike more. Stuff like that.

With a bike that has a tall TT, you similarly modify your behavior in such a way that you don't even think about it.

As mentioned before, some people's riding style does not lend itself to a tall TT. That's fine. Don't buy a bike with a tall TT. For others like myself, it doesn't matter. That's fine.


----------



## JR 137 (Apr 28, 2012)

I was going to start a thread asking this question, but I think it's relevant here to this thread...

I've been test driving a few bikes. I'm 5'9 and 30" inseam pants are usually a tad long. Every bike I've been on, I'm touching the top tube. 16" frames have felt the most comfortable to me, but I'm still touching.

I know my question is ackward, but goes...
When people talk about having, say 2" of clearence, is that 2" past everything? In other words, is that your beans having 2" of room when they're hanging, or is it 2" from more or less sitting on the tube (ie the beans are resting on the tube, but not all pushed up)?

I know this is ackward, but I'm trying to better understand how to properly answer when a dealer asks me. Not easy to ask this to a person face to face, especially when there's others in the store.


----------



## joeinchi (Jun 19, 2010)

Now, are these beans tightly-packaged or hanging free on the vine? 

I think what you want to tell the dealer is that you're looking for a bike with a standover no greater than 28". At 5'9", you'd also be looking for a Medium size bike or 17-19" frame.

See what they come up with.


----------



## JR 137 (Apr 28, 2012)

joeinchi said:


> Now, are these beans tightly-packaged or hanging free on the vine?
> 
> I think what you want to tell the dealer is that you're looking for a bike with a standover no greater than 28". At 5'9", you'd also be looking for a Medium size bike or 17-19" frame.
> 
> See what they come up with.


I guess they're medium packed - boxer briefs. Not in spandex, but not commando either.

Frame size has depended on the bike itself. Not from the standover aspect, but on the bike feeling. The best fitting was a Trek 3700 in 16". 17.5" 29ers have fit pretty well to on the bike, but the standovers have all been snug. All 19" frames I've tried haven't fit in any aspect.

The only bike I've been on that's had at least an inch of full clearence on the top tube is my current bike. It was found in the alley and doesn't have a size written on it. It's a bit too small for me from a riding aspect, hence the search for a new one.


----------



## joeinchi (Jun 19, 2010)

The 16" Trek 3700 has a standover of 29.1", so that sound like what you're looking for.

Trek Bicycle

Unfortunately, that's a Small size and if your torso and arm length are _average_ for someone of your height, it's probably too small. Maybe not. How did it feel?

I'd say keep looking at other brands. The 17" Jamis Trail has a 29.2" standover and a Medium GT Agressor has 28.9" SO. Hopefully you can try one or both out. Good luck.


----------



## ryencool (Apr 20, 2012)

I tested out those exact trek bikes at my LBS, and Im your exact size. While the 19.5 felt good, it was too big for the type of riding I want to do. I could fit on a 16 but it was toooo tight. The bike would be smaller and would allow for more aggressive riding, but not too comfortable. So I ordered an 18" motobecane 400ht from bikes direct.com. It has the same geometry as the trek 820 and man it fits like a freaking glove.










319$ shipped. Same components as a comparable trek and same fork thats on the entry level specialized....


----------



## JR 137 (Apr 28, 2012)

joeinchi said:


> The 16" Trek 3700 has a standover of 29.1", so that sound like what you're looking for.
> 
> Trek Bicycle
> 
> ...


The 3700 fit me perfectly. Everything I'm looking for in a frame. Just so happens that it's basically a glorified hybrid - rims bend far too easily on any type of trail, and the 7 speed gearing sucks a$$. Had this not been the case, I'd have ridden off on a brand new green one on the spot. The 4 series addresses those issues at a price thats beyond my budget.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

JR 137 said:


> The 3700 fit me perfectly. Everything I'm looking for in a frame. Just so happens that it's basically a glorified hybrid - rims bend far too easily on any type of trail, and the 7 speed gearing sucks a$$. Had this not been the case, I'd have ridden off on a brand new green one on the spot. The 4 series addresses those issues at a price thats beyond my budget.


sounds like you're looking at the wrong type of bike in the first place.


----------



## zebrahum (Jun 29, 2005)

22-34 said:


> Of course the bolded is important but my jewels are even more important to me. If I cannot stand over the bike then what is the point of buying it!


Personally I buy my bikes to ride and not to stand over.

I "graze" my top tube when standing over with two flat feet and I've never even had a close call while riding (except the stem issue that has been brought up, hardly standover's fault). You don't stop a bike with two feet on the ground, you put a foot down or lean the bike to one side. A little bit of thinking goes a long way here; you shouldn't compromise fit just to have some mythical 2" of clearance fulfilled.

Buy the bike that fits you properly.
If you're between sizes and you are truly worried then size down.
If you aren't between sizes and can't get enough standover to ease your troubled mind, pick a different bike.


----------



## fireball_jones (Mar 29, 2009)

Having been in plenty of slow OTBs in my day, standover is irrelevant. 10 times out of 10 if you go OTB slow enough, the handlebar catches you, and you fall towards the stem / headtube area. You'll never get any clearance on any bike that fits you at that point.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

zebrahum said:


> Personally I buy my bikes to ride and not to stand over.
> 
> I "graze" my top tube when standing over with two flat feet and I've never even had a close call while riding (except the stem issue that has been brought up, hardly standover's fault). You don't stop a bike with two feet on the ground, you put a foot down or lean the bike to one side. A little bit of thinking goes a long way here*; you shouldn't compromise fit just to have some mythical 2" of clearance fulfilled.
> *
> ...


Sad thing is it's still in a bunch of manufacturers literature.


----------



## JR 137 (Apr 28, 2012)

NateHawk said:


> sounds like you're looking at the wrong type of bike in the first place.


What do you mean by that?

I'm looking for a trail bike. The 3700 isn't a hybrid. I'm calling it that due to the rims and gears. The rest of it is fine for trail riding IMO; it's not like it has that light duty stem, bars, rim brakes and thin tires.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

JR 137 said:


> What do you mean by that?
> 
> I'm looking for a trail bike. The 3700 isn't a hybrid. I'm calling it that due to the rims and gears. The rest of it is fine for trail riding IMO; it's not like it has that light duty stem, bars, rim brakes and thin tires.


as far as I'm concerned, in Trek's offerings, you don't get into a trail worthy mtb until you get in the vicinity of the 4500. Cheaper than that and it's a lighter duty bike better suited to general riding with mtb styling. most manufacturers are the same way. the cheapest bikes are just bikes. you have to spend more money to get something durable enough to handle the kind of use a passionate mountain biker is going to put a bike through.

and yes, I started out in that area, too. my first bike was a $300 Diamondback. I bent some rims on that thing, and I was pretty light back then. but that's what you get for the money. but when I started riding it, it suited my needs. when my needs changed, I bought a bike better suited to my needs.

If you want a less expensive trail worthy bike you will need to look elsewhere.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Try the size down and see what it is like regardless of what the salesperson says or put you on. At least then you can compare and see if you like a little more standover. You can always inch your seat back a little, get a layback post, or a longer stem or a combo of all to get a little more top tube length.


----------



## Swager (Jun 6, 2012)

Well I just ordered my first Mountain bike. I rode a 26 and a 29 and they both felt good. I've been riding a GT Vantara for about 19 years and I do not know what to expect from trail/mountain biking. The size chart says I am on the fence for bike sizes.

At 5' 7", 155 lbs, and a 30" inseam I am a bleedover into 18" size but I could also fit a 16". Since the clearance is more (under the boys) for me getting a 16", that is what I went with.

Will I regret later on not getting a 18" because I really will not know until I hit a few trails with it. When I become a more experienced rider, will I be longing for that 2 extra inches or will I be so accustom to my bike that the 18" will be a memory? Too many variables!!! 

Thanks for any input


----------



## blammo585 (Apr 24, 2012)

I'm 6'0" with a 32" inseam. I had been assuming that I would be looking at a Large when I get a new bike. My friend came over to the house a few weeks ago and brought his Raleigh; not sure which model. It was a Large and my boys rested right on the top tube. He is a few inches shorter than me and he said it is a little big for him. Sitting down the bike felt fine but it did feel tall. It definitely will have me comparing Mediums and Larges when I get ready to buy. I got my son a GT Aggressor 1.0 a few weeks ago in a Small; I ride it around and it feels OK (other than he has his seat all the way down). If it had a longer stem I could probably ride it longer-term. I do notice that when standing I'm over the bars more than I am on my own. I wouldn't worry about it too much; I think you will be fine.

Oh, by the way, what bike did you get?


----------



## Things and Stuff (Jun 5, 2012)

Riding a bike on a trail that you can't just put your feet down on without crushing your testicles seems like a recipe for disaster.


----------



## iamspartacus (May 21, 2012)

I have been to many LBS's and all have said the stand over is a good guide, but somewhat old school. You should have a little clearance, but the ride is what is most important. Most measurements for frames are at the lowest point on the top tube. Sometimes, like in the Santa Cruz frames, that shortest measurement is actually obstructed by the horn on the saddle. Thus, the measurement may not give the most accurate information. Try bikes out and get what satisfies your concerns.


----------



## Nor-Cal-Mike (May 12, 2012)

Well Im 5'10" with a 30" inseam. I bought a Felt Nine Trail 15.5" frame. I first tried moving the seat back but that wasnt quite enough. No reach to cockpit issuses just slight leg postion issuse. So I got a Thompson Elite set back post and set seat in about 5mm back from center and so far so good. As far as stand over goes, well lets just say there isn't any at all. The boys are snug on the top tube but it hasn't been an issuse thus far.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Things and Stuff said:


> Riding a bike on a trail that you can't just put your feet down on without crushing your testicles seems like a recipe for disaster.


Good lord, how many times do more experienced riders have to say "no, it's not" before people will listen? Standover clearance matters less for this than it does for "flickability". Look at an XC race bike HT next to an AM HT and a DJ HT. the XC bike will have less clearance than the AM bike which will have less than the DJ bike. It matters how you will use it. If you just plan to ride it, it matters little.

If you want to do tricks, the more standover the better. Look at trials bikes. But it has nothing to do with your nuts.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

Swager said:


> Will I regret later on not getting a 18" because I really will not know until I hit a few trails with it. ... Too many variables!!!


Those inches are not comparable between brands or even bike models.

176 cm (5'9", or so), I have three bikes (two in riding order), "sized" 15", 17", and 19". Actually, they are all "Mediums". They all give me very close to the same riding position.

I've got used to relatively compact frames and I think one of the reasons is that the trails here tend to be twisty, and a slightly shorter bike makes it easier to maneuver between the rocks and roots on those twisty trails. I suspect my preferences would be different if the trails were faster.


----------



## R+P+K (Oct 28, 2009)

Stand over height is really only useful for measuring stand over height.


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*I promise you....*



22-34 said:


> Of course the bolded is important but my jewels are even more important to me. If I cannot stand over the bike then what is the point of buying it!


I can assure you that you're not going to dismount from your bike by:

1. Coming to a complete stop
2. Leveling your pedals
3. Jumping forward and landing with both feet flat on the ground with you standing over your top tube.

I can also assure you that you're going to hit your nuts on your bike at some point. Most likely it will be when your bike comes to a sudden halt and you keep moving forward and smack the ol' twig and berries against the the stem.

You may also drop them on to the top tube. But stand over height won't matter because the bike will be moving and you'll have fallen off the seat and your feet will be dragging the ground. You'll be keeping your feet up so you don't break your legs and trying to stop.

When you do stop you'll either be sitting on the saddle and holding a tree or you'll have the bike leaned over, with one foot on the ground and another on a pedal. You won't be standing over the top tube with both feet on the ground because it takes to much effort to get remounted and started again from that position. And even if you want to argue that point, you still won't do it because you'll rip your calf up by running it in to your rings and that hurts like a mother.

In other words, stand over height just doesn't matter that much.


----------

