# 5ft 8in; 30in inseam; bike frame size? Please help!



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

Hi,

So I've never really had a decent mountain bike before, just target bikes. I did have a Specialized Hybrid that I rode for a few months that was 18" or 19". Long story short, I got screwed on the purchase of the hybrid and had to sell it and am now looking for a mountain bike. I found one on craigslist and want to meet today, but all bike shops are closed around me so I cannot get fitted or ask them questions about fit. Anyways, would it be a stretch for me to ride a 16" bike? The bike is a 2008 Giant Yukon and the seller listed it at $300 though I offered $180. Anyways, primary question is about the fit; any advice regarding the deal is also welcome! Thanks!

P.S. I don't know if this matters, but the length of my arm is 26". I measured from armpit to fingertips.


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

That bike should be too small for you. You'd fit a medium much better.


----------



## Call_me_Tom (May 26, 2008)

We are almost the same size, 5'8.5" with a 30" inseam.

On a 26er I ride a medium, 17 and on a 29er also ride a medium, 17.5


----------



## winter (Nov 30, 2009)

Different manufacturers measure their bikes differently, a 16-inch Giant will not necessarily equate to a 16-inch Trek or 16-inch GT. I believe the whole emphasis on stand over clearance is overblown. The key to bike fit is that you're comfortable while pedaling without straining your neck, back, or arms (legs by definitions will be strained and tired in cycling). Frame sizes just give you a starting point; as long as you're relatively close, the bike fit can always be fine tuned by different stem length/rise, seatpost setback/length, handlebar width or saddle fore/aft adjustment.

For what it's worth, I'm your size and I've comfortably ridden frames as small as a GT 14.5 inch LTS3000DS to a 17.5 inch Motobecane Fantom.

Test ride the bike; your body will let you know if it's comfortable.


----------



## Call_me_Tom (May 26, 2008)

winter said:


> Different manufacturers measure their bikes differently, a 16-inch Giant will not necessarily equate to a 16-inch Trek or 16-inch GT. I believe the whole emphasis on stand over clearance is overblown. The key to bike fit is that you're comfortable while pedaling without straining your neck, back, or arms (legs by definitions will be strained and tired in cycling). Frame sizes just give you a starting point; as long as you're relatively close, the bike fit can always be fine tuned by different stem length/rise, seatpost setback/length, handlebar width or saddle fore/aft adjustment.
> 
> For what it's worth, I'm your size and I've comfortably ridden frames as small as a GT 14.5 inch LTS3000DS to a 17.5 inch Motobecane Fantom.
> 
> Test ride the bike; your body will let you know if it's comfortable.


Adding to the above, if I could do it all over again, I would have went with a small framed 29er. Text book, I'm a medium but the small 29er was more comfortable and ride-able "for me". The medium 29er feels and handles like my motorcycle in that I rotate the frame with my hips...if you're a motorcycle rider then that should make sense.


----------



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

Thanks for all the help everyone! So I will not be buying the Yukon from craigslist, though another bike has caught my interest and was just posted. It is a Gary Fisher Tassajara; Based off bikepedia, it seems to be a 2004 model. It needs a new seat, which I have, new grips, which I can get for $10.00, and a tune-up, which a reputable lbs near my school does for $30 after student discount(although the shop also says "All labor rates are based on a shop labor rate of $60 an hour"). The bike is listed at $120. Worth it? Here is the link. Gary Fisher Tassajara

There is also a GT Avalanche 1.0 for sale for $400. The ad says its a 2010, but the bike in the ad does not look like the 2010 model from GT's catalog or Bikepedia. Here's the link. GT Avalanche 1.0 2010 Medium
I'm hesitant to pay $400, but if it's a really good deal, I might just go for it.


----------



## winter (Nov 30, 2009)

bsfswisher said:


> Thanks for all the help everyone! So I will not be buying the Yukon from craigslist, though another bike has caught my interest and was just posted. It is a Gary Fisher Tassajara; Based off bikepedia, it seems to be a 2004 model. It needs a new seat, which I have, new grips, which I can get for $10.00, and a tune-up, which a reputable lbs *near my school* does for $30 after student discount(although the shop also says "All labor rates are based on a shop labor rate of $60 an hour"). The bike is listed at $120. Worth it? Here is the link. Gary Fisher Tassajara
> 
> There is also a GT Avalanche 1.0 for sale for $400. The ad says its a 2010, but the bike in the ad does not look like the 2010 model from GT's catalog or Bikepedia. Here's the link. GT Avalanche 1.0 2010 Medium
> I'm hesitant to pay $400, but if it's a really good deal, I might just go for it.


The phrase "near my school" implies that you're still in school. Will be bike be used for commuting duties or for trail rides? If it's going to be a commuter, then the GF Tassajara is the better choice as it's cheap and if it's stolen or if parts are ripped off, then the damage to the wallet is not as great. If it's going to be a trail bike, then the GT Avalanche is definitely the better choice given its componentry and superior fork.

Neither bikes had lived a hard live on the trails given the lack of chain stay gouges and the presence of reflectors. However, the funky paint damage on the Tassajara implies some sort of neglect or exposure to the elements; or that might just how the Promax factory painted their brake levers.


----------



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

I go to UC Santa Cruz so the bike will be used to get around to class and also occasionally ride to the beach with a surfboard (I had surf racks on my last bike that I will put on this bike), but our upper campus has tons of trails which is actually why I want a mountain bike now instead of a hybrid. If it wasn't obvious enough, I'm pretty new to mountain biking haha, but I do plan on riding the trails at least once a week.


----------



## winter (Nov 30, 2009)

bsfswisher said:


> I go to UC Santa Cruz so the bike will be used to get around to class and also occasionally ride to the beach with a surfboard (I had surf racks on my last bike that I will put on this bike), but our upper campus has tons of trails which is actually why I want a mountain bike now instead of a hybrid. If it wasn't obvious enough, I'm pretty new to mountain biking haha, but I do plan on riding the trails at least once a week.


Hopefully UC Santa Cruz's bike theft problem is no where near what it used to be at UC Riverside when I went there in the early 1990s. There used to be many random front wheels and frames chained to the bike racks with the rest of the bike missing. Parking used to be around $250 or so a quarter and I was a commuter. To get around the expensive parking, I bought a cheapo Pacific bike with no quick releases of any sort and drove the bike to campus every day; I'd park off campus on one of the side streets and then bike to classes. My bike was not worth much and I didn't have to worry about it being stolen. Like your campus, there were some trails nearby and that's how I got started in mountain biking; and it's become a part of my life ever since. Happy trails to you and may your bike purchase set you on the first of many blissful trails!


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

Santa cruz has GREAT trails.. some pretty serious stuff too. You might get pretty addicted to riding in that area!


----------



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

Haha, with that said, I feel as if I should invest in the avalanche? But, that price on the GF Tassajara...

EDIT: Well, it seems the Tassjara has already been sold, though the seller hasn't contacted me. I'm assuming it's sold since the ad isn't on craigslist anymore. So, I guess the question is if the avalanche is a good deal?


----------



## xenon (Apr 16, 2007)

bsfswisher said:


> There is also a GT Avalanche 1.0 for sale for $400. The ad says its a 2010, but the bike in the ad does not look like the 2010 model from GT's catalog or Bikepedia. Here's the link. GT Avalanche 1.0 2010 Medium
> .


The bike looks exactly like my GT Avalanche 1.0 D 2010 (except for upgrades, of course).
I am 175 cm. (between 5'8" and 5'9"), the M size fits me well, may be I'd prefer the cockpit a bit longer, but I am used to long frames.


----------



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

Found out these bikes are too big for me, so if anyone in the bay is looking for bikes I might as well leave these links up haha...

2006 Specialized Rockhopper Comp Silver and Black

Also, Trek 4300 Men Women Mountain Bike Green/Black Rides Great (408)881-2704 $149


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

that Rockhopper looks pretty good.

you should probably fit well on most company's 16 or 17" bikes. 18" is pushing it, but if you have a long torso and long arms, which is a more important consideration than standover, you could do it.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

bsfswisher said:


> I go to UC Santa Cruz so the bike will be used to get around to class and also occasionally ride to the beach with a surfboard (I had surf racks on my last bike that I will put on this bike), but our upper campus has tons of trails which is actually why I want a mountain bike now instead of a hybrid. If it wasn't obvious enough, I'm pretty new to mountain biking haha, but I do plan on riding the trails at least once a week.


I started mountain biking when I was in Santa Cruz.

You can go straight from upper campus to several miles of trails in Wilder Ranch. I didn't have a car at the time, so that was about it for my riding experience there. Well, that and some grey trails that may or may not be gone now... Also some road riding. The Santa Cruz mountains are a great place for road bikes too. Really, the same areas are good for road bikes and mountain bikes, just a road vs. trails issue. Bombing down from Empire Grade into Felton kicked ass. There was also a trail between Porter and Kresge and central campus my friends and I called Star Wars. It was awesome downhill. Riding it uphill (figuring out I could, really) is the moment I go back to when I think about what makes me a XC rider. I guess everyone is by default if they aren't something else, but I think climbing on singletrack is a defining choice.

As others have implied, you can't size a person over the internet. However, if you ride the "normal" size for your height, you're likely a 17" or 18" bike guy, depending on whether the company sizes on even or odd numbers.

IIRC, there are some used bike shops on Bay St. You'd probably pay a bit more than you would on Craig's List but you should also start with a bike that's in good working order, and you can try a few when you go. So if you get impatient with Craig's List, give that a shot. Good luck. :thumbsup:


----------



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

Thanks for the advice guys! Unfortunately both bikes are too big for me haha...the search continues! I'll definitely check out Bay St. but I'm home for break so I'll have to wait until next week.


----------



## Flats (Feb 3, 2011)

A 16 inch On One Inbred. Long top tubes (23 in) and lots of stand over. Classic steel frame. They rip singletrack. I'm 5 10 with a 30 inch inseam and found it a bit short with a layback post and 80 mm stem, so bought an 18. Perfect length, and enough stand over.

Sorry if this is presumptuous, but the 16 frame is in near-new condition just sitting in my basement doing nothing. It's a waste of a great frame, honestly. Pre CEN, so a bit more springy and lively than the CEN rated frames (my 18 is post CEN). $125 + shipping. PM me if you're interested?


----------



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

Thanks for the offer, but I'm looking to buy local and complete; good luck with the sale!

What do you guys think of this?

Excellent condition Specialized Hardrock 2010


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

The Hardrock in the pic has been declawed, but the frame is classic XC. It's too bad Specialized is building them with crappier components every year. Now they've even added another name to their hardtail lineup. Silly. They have great name recognition on the Hardrock, Rockhopper and Stumpjumper. "Carve" isn't even a thematic fit.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Look for about 22.8 to 23.6 effective top tube (horizontal distance from the middle of the top of headtube to center line of seatpost (assuming not and offset seattube), with 70 to 90mm stem. That's what I would look for - at 174cm height.

Seat tube height is not a good measure.

That hardrock is fine, but it is not really a mountain bike. It will do well to commute and some dirt paths.

Or you can buy one from bikesdirect and stop by my garage in Mountain View and I will assemble it for you.  Takes 10 minutes.


----------



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

I'm assuming it's not considered a mountain bike because of the tires? If that's the case, is the bike worth it at that price? I was planning on going on trails and thought that it was strange that the tires are the way they are in the pictures. I guess I'm asking if I should buy it or not? haha like I said I plan on going on trails, but also using to get to class, though the primary use for it will be to go on trails.


----------



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

Axe said:


> Look for about 22.8 to 23.6 effective top tube


Would 24.2 be a stretch?


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

bsfswisher said:


> Would 24.2 be a stretch?


Literally.

(Though some new bikes are going there.. with 50mm stem and straight post)

If you need a pair of somewhat trail worthy tires for that hardrock I can give you a few Kenda's Dred Tread or older Schwalbes if you are in the neighborhood (or pay shipping). I won half a dozen of them in a raffle. (To go with a dozen+ already laying around)


----------



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

Thanks so much for the offer, but I think I am going to pass on that hardrock so I won't be needing tires! Thanks again though.


----------



## danpass (Apr 1, 2012)

At 5'7" the 16" Trek 3500 was ok for the inseam but too short fore-aft.

The 18" is definitely my limit but fore-aft is just right.


----------



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

Hey, I think I found a decent bike...

2001 Trek 6700 in great condition for $150?

Opinions please? Also, the 6700 is a mens bike right?


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

If it fits, do it.

And yeah, men's bike.

From the picture, it doesn't look like the frame accepts a rear disc brake. So if you're going to get upgradeitis, either get over it, or channel your itis elsewhere.

The stock fork is short-travel by today's standards, but not unreasonably so. You won't have trouble finding a replacement if it comes up, but you should stick with 80mm or possibly 100mm forks if you do replace it.

You'd need to spend a lot more than $150 to get that drivetrain on a current bike.


----------



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

AndrwSwitch said:


> If it fits, do it.


Alright, so this is going to sound incredibly stupid, but how can I tell a bike fits? I assume it means that if I am comfortable then it fits, since I have read some places that is how you determine fit. But, based off just a quick test ride, is there any way I can tell the bike really fits? Sorry for the dumb question haha.

P.S. The trek is a 16.5 inch...any ideas on how that "should" fit?


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

It's difficult if you haven't been riding in a while, but I think it's doable.

Actually I just posted "my" way of seeing what I think on another thread.

http://forums.mtbr.com/9168339-post17.html

An XL is probably too big for you. According to bikepedia.com, that bike was also available in S, M and L. I can imagine the others fitting you, to varying degrees, depending on whether that's your inseam according to a cyclist, a tailor, or a pair of jeans, how long your arms are, and some other stuff.


----------



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

Thanks! Also, I just edited my last post; the bike is a small..16.5 inch. And that's my inseam according to me wearing jeans and using measuring tape haha. My jeans are usually 29" or 30" inseam when I buy them though. I usually buy Levi's if that matters lol.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Glad I asked. Your inseam is probably a little longer according to cyclists and tailors.

http://www.coloradocyclist.com/bikefit

My jeans think I have a 30" inseam too (I'm a skosh over 5'8") but my Carhartts think it's 32 and a tailor thought it was 31.5". I've never done the cycling inseam ritual, it's not how I size my bikes.

Anyway, it's not particularly unusual proportions. So in most brands' bikes oriented toward athletic riding (that would include the 6700) you're likely to be either a small or a medium. This is according to me, and I'm not really any better at this than everyone else who will start throwing out guesses. But you don't want to waste your time looking at XS or XL bikes unless you notice a consistent pattern in test-riding bikes and finding they don't fit. Ideally, I'd imagine you'd rather buy the bike and move on to riding it. So the closer we can get to a good fit from the beginning, the better.

All of that rambling aside, yes, go look at it.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Glad I asked. Your inseam is probably a little longer according to cyclists and tailors.
> 
> http://www.coloradocyclist.com/bikefit


I went through that one, it gives you three fits ("race/XC", "AM", "DH"). I am 174cm tall as well.

It gave me numbers that had been exactly what I have been using for years - figured out by trial an error and a lot of experimentation. That was reassuring.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 28, 2008)

Axe said:


> I went through that one, it gives you three fits ("race/XC", "AM", "DH"). I am 174cm tall as well.
> 
> It gave me numbers that had been exactly what I have been using for years - figured out by trial an error and a lot of experimentation. That was reassuring.


I did the same thing about a year ago using the fit calculator from competitive cyclist (Fit Calculator - Competitive Cyclist). I then went to my old hardtail bike that has always fit me so well (that ive now had for 15 years), measured, and found the suggested measurements from the calculator were spot on with that bike.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

FLMike said:


> I did the same thing about a year ago using the fit calculator from competitive cyclist (Fit Calculator - Competitive Cyclist). I then went to my old hardtail bike that has always fit me so well (that ive now had for 15 years), measured, and found the suggested measurements from the calculator were spot on with that bike.


Ah.. that was actually the one that I used, not ColoradoCyclist. Misread the URL.

Yeah, it is not rocket science.

What bugs me when shopping for a frame sight unseen is that most do not list BB drop (just BB height, which is unreliable and all over the place on how they measured it), do not list what a2c and stack height they measured head angle with, do not list reach and stack... Is it that hard to copy and paste some numbers from their CAD program?


----------



## FLMike (Sep 28, 2008)

Just to add....

Even when those measurements are completely listed, and despite what appeared to be spot on measurements from the fit calculator, I refuse to buy a bike unless I can actually sit on it.

Last October when I was shopping for a new bike, I put over 100 miles on my truck in a single day visiting 6 different bike shops test riding all kinds of different bikes. 

Looking back it was probably one of the best decisions I made when buying a bike. Unfortunately Im right in between typical medium/large sizes. I test rode the bike I wanted in a medium, and wasnt quite sure.. Threw my leg over a Large, and it just felt perfect. As soon as I rode the large there was no doubt in my mind..

I think most beginners have the problem of picking a bike which is too small for them. Once a rider has more experience, they understand that you need room to move on the bike. As most beginners body position stays way too static while riding.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

FLMike said:


> I refuse to buy a bike unless I can actually sit on it.


I actually trust the numbers more then a feeling of riding around in the parking lot. Seems to be more repeatable as far as long term comfort goes. Of course the best is to rent one and go for a day long ride...

Have a Nicolai frame on order right now.. No, could not find one to ride around here. But the numbers are spot on... Hope they do not fail me.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I didn't mean to take this discussion to fit calculators. It was just the first page that came up when I searched "cycling inseam," and they have the right weird ritual.

Actually I think fit calculators are pretty bogus.


----------



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

Hmm I used the competitive cyclist fitting but I must have measured myself incorrectly...the effective top tube length would place me at over 21.5 inch frames haha. Anyways, there is another bike that popped up on craigslist: 2003 Trek 4500 size 17.5. I feel as if the 17.5 would fit me better, but the components on the 2001 Trek 6700 size 16.5 are much better. Also, the guy wants $300 for his 2003 4500 and I am meeting a seller on Friday for the 6700 for $145. Any thoughts on if I should go for the 4500 if I could lower the price on it? Also, the 6700 seems to be in much better condition than the 4500, though I am planning on tuning up whichever bike I get.

Link to the 4500..

Trek 4500 Mtn. Bike 17.5"


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I'm not sure if this applies to a '03 4500, but current models have "recreational" geometry, where recreational is a euphemism for a fat person riding passively. Skip it.


----------



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

Haha wow made me laugh out loud..anyways I looked at pictures of the 6700 and 4500 and the geometry of each bike looks almost the same to me. I could, however (likely that I am), be wrong though.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Take a look at the geometry charts. What you're looking for specifically is the effective top tube length. The 6-series and most other hardtails have relatively long effective top tubes, and they go up by a largish increment for each size. This year's starts with a 549mm top tube for the 15.5" bike and goes up to a 641mm top tube for the 21.5" bike. "My" length is around 590mm, or a little shorter. So I'd ride a 17.5" 6-series. Incidentally the same nominal size as my own bike. This isn't too unusual - the bike companies have sort-of agreed on what XC hardtail sizes are. Although the moment you assume that, you'll get the wrong thing. 

The 4500 has a smaller size available. But if one starts with the 16" size, probably a fair equivalent, the top tube is 553mm long. The increments are smaller, though, and by the max. size, 24", the top tube is only 613mm long. 10mm is actually pretty significant for stem length, so it's pretty significant for top tube length too. And a bike nominally a size bigger has a top tube that belongs on a bike a size and a half or so smaller. Annoying. "My" top tube length in the 4500 shows up on 19.5" or maybe the 21" bike - so I have to go up a size or two.

It annoys me when people talk about the standover clearance of the bike. Because I buy a bike to ride, not to stand over. But on the 19.5" bike, there'd be no standover clearance for me, and an inch less on the 21". Finally, I have a 120mm head tube on my bike, and my stem flipped up at +6 degrees, with no spacers. With the 19.5" bike, I could use a -17 degree stem and actually end up a little lower than I like. So, fine. With the 21", I wouldn't be able to get the bars as low as I like them anymore.

On the other hand, if I wanted to sit bolt upright and have my hands well above the level of the saddle and close to me, the 4-series makes it easy.

So I guess I could probably make the 19.5" 4-series Trek fit me okay, after all that, but it'd be a bit of a battle. It's generally going to be a lot less of a fight for someone who wants to ride athletically to fit bikes with traditional XC geometry, and in the right size.

The build on the 6700 is a bit nicer too, if things are original and in good shape. If that goes south, go ahead and look into the 4500. I don't know if Trek's been giving them short top tubes since '03, so all the above could be totally wrong.  Trek doesn't list geometry charts going back that far.


----------



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

Picked up the 6700! Paid 145. Bike is in really good condition, though parts of the sticker on the bike are peeling off, but the frame seems to be in perfect condition. I will be taking the bike in for a tune-up anyways though. The bike might even be a women's bike since the receipt the person gave me (they had the original receipt from 11 years ago haha) said the bike was WSD, but the bike fits and feels comfortable so I'm happy. Thanks for all the help everyone!


----------



## xenon (Apr 16, 2007)

Axe said:


> What bugs me when shopping for a frame sight unseen is that most do not list BB drop (just BB height, which is unreliable and all over the place on how they measured it), do not list what a2c and stack height they measured head angle with, do not list reach and stack... Is it that hard to copy and paste some numbers from their CAD program?


Even better. The measurement I look at first when shopping for a bike (or even daydreaming of one) is the ETT aka TTT. Yet different manufacturers measure it differently. Some measure the TTT horizontally from the steerer to the seatpost (or seat tube's imagined extention). Others, like Marin, measure it from the steerer to the vertical line coming up from the seat tube end. The latter way, say, the longer the seat tube is, the longer TTT becomes even though the real frame length remains the same. Go figure.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

bsfswisher said:


> Picked up the 6700! Paid 145. Bike is in really good condition, though parts of the sticker on the bike are peeling off, but the frame seems to be in perfect condition. I will be taking the bike in for a tune-up anyways though. The bike might even be a women's bike since the receipt the person gave me (they had the original receipt from 11 years ago haha) said the bike was WSD, but the bike fits and feels comfortable so I'm happy. Thanks for all the help everyone!


Score!

Pics or it didn't happen.

As of 11 years ago, WSD probably just meant it shipped with a short stem.


----------



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Pics or it didn't happen.


Pics wil be up soon! The bike might be a 14 inch, but not sure. It is WSD and has a sticker that says small..WSD sizes for the bike are 14inch, 16, and 18. I rode some trails with my roommate today and the bike felt fine though, maybe a bit small but nothing uncomfortable haha. MIght be 16 inch, might be 14, but either way I really like the bike!


----------



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

So, this is a bit embarrassing but it turns out the 6700 is too small for me; I can definitely notice it now. I think the frame is indeed a 14 inch, maybe a 16. Anyways, I'm selling the bike and am left with a few choices now. At this point, I do prefer to buy new, though I am open to suggestions of what to buy used. I really, really do not want to spend over $400 out the door. I'm strongly considering either a Motobecane 600HT from bikes direct which is on sale for $360, or a Giant Revel 2 which retails at $410, but I can get a 15% discount on the bike which would make it right around $380 out the door. Any thoughts, opinions? I am also open to suggestions of specific bikes new or used that would fit the budget. Thanks!


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

You've got a couple choices.

First, maybe the 6700's actually okay. How long is the stem? There's an upper limit to stems that don't mess up the handling, and I don't know what it is, but it's longer than 100mm...

Second, sell it complete and start over, which is what you're thinking about.

Third, cannibalize the bike to build a bare frame that's a better size for you.

There are some definite disadvantages to approach 3, but it's more interesting.  The 6700 has V-brakes and an 80mm suspension fork. The current standard (but not exclusive) is disc brakes. Forks vary on hardtails. You have a nicer drivetrain now, at least depending on condition, than either of the bikes you're listing.

Here's a cheap mountain bike frame. It runs to a short top tube, so maybe not that good a solution...
Nashbar Double-butted Aluminum Mountain Bike Frame - Mountain Bike Frames

Here are a few that are missing their geometry information. Annoying, but maybe you can find it out on the 'net and one of the has more athletic geometry.
Ascent Aluminum Mountain Bike Frame - Mountain Bike Frames
Access XCL Comp Mountain Bike Frame - Mountain Bike Frames

Another pretty upright bike
Sette Reken Alloy Hardtail Frame at Price Point

This one's more expensive, but more cool, with a little better (still pretty upright for me) geometry.
http://www.somafab.com/archives/product/groove

And of course there's EBay.

You can probably also get some money back out of the 6700 frame and parts that don't move over well via EBay.

Since you have the bike in hand, figure out its geometry. That way, you know what to look for in a new frame. Figuring it out from the little picture a lot of manufacturers provide to explain their geometry is a good way to do it. Here's another resource.
Park Tool Co. » ParkTool Blog » MTB Positioning Chart

The most important thing (assuming you stick with getting rid of the 6700) is to get a bike with a longer reach. That's true whether you get a new complete bike or a bare frame.


----------



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

So...updates!

Am in the market again for a bike...narrowed down my choices to the Giant Revel 1 and Revel 2. I went to the lbs and am able to get the 1 for 515 OTD and the 2 for 420 OTD. I test rode both and really like both, though from what I have read and because of my discussion with the lbs worker, I do prefer the Revel 1. Also, the revel 1 has a few key upgrades that I feel as if are well worth the extra $95. Anyways, thoughts on getting the Revel 2 or Revel 1? Also, the Revel 1 disc brakes would squeak when I test rode the bike...is this normal? And, the most obvious question...Revel 2 for 420 or Revel 1 for 515? I do plan on riding frequently on both trails and pavement. FWIW, the Revel 1 has Tektro Novela brakes. Thanks!

Also, the Giant is 18 inches...was told it fits me by the lbs.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Definitely the Revel 1. The Revel 2 has a 7-speed freewheel. Stupid thing to have on a mountain bike.

Disc brakes can sometimes make obnoxious noises. Mine only do if they're wet. I don't know the Tektro Novela very well, so dunno if it's okay or not.

Do you still have the 6700? You might be able to do some mix-and-match...

Does UCSC still have the bike coop on campus? I think they sometimes had bikes for sale too...

18" is certainly in the range of "right" for your height. So without seeing you on the bike, it sounds reasonable. You've seen all the "it's subjective" and "you have to ride it" posts, so I won't repeat them.


----------



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

I don't have the 6700 anymore...had to sell it to get some funding for the new bike haha and yeah we still do. I have been there more times than I can remember to learn how to fix about a million things that broke on my first bike this year (I got screwed on the deal). I actually talked to the coop about buying a bike from them but the guy told me that if I was looking for a biek more than $100, I was looking in the wrong place haha. ALso forgot to mention i really preferred the 8 speed on the Revel 1..thanks for mentioning that. So I guess I will go with the revel 1. Also, how hard is it to upgrade disc brakes? meaning what new parts would I have to get? I'm assuming I would need in addition to the rotors new calipers, but not sure what else.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

If you stick with mechanicals, it's pretty easy. Just get a BB7 kit and you're done. Most come with the rotors, but make sure to read the description in whatever catalog.

If you go to hydraulics, you have to replace the entire system. Hydraulics are pretty nice, but BB7s already work, so I think hydraulics are better thought of as a higher-end tuning upgrade, rather than a functional upgrade like if you find your Novelas don't work or aren't reliable.


----------



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

Cool, thanks for the info and all your help! Also,

Avid BB7 Mechanical Disc Brake '10 > Components > Brakes > Disc Brakes | Jenson USA Online Bike Shop

I have been researching and it seems the Tektro Novela's are not so good, so how do those BB7's look? Does that include everything I would need for brake replacement?


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

You need new brake cables too. That's pretty cheap. Your existing housing should be fine, though.

If you can afford new brakes at time of purchase, can you afford the Revel 0 instead? You get BB5s, which aren't as good as BB7s but still do the job okay, a better fork, and a better drivetrain, including a crank with replaceable rings. The fork has available spring kits so if it's not right for your weight, you can actually do something about it.


----------



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

Unfortunately the Revel 0 is out of my price range and I also don't think I'm anywhere near good enough to be deserving of the Revel 0 haha so I would feel pretty bad buying it. Aside from that, do you still think a Revel 1 is a solid purchase?

Also, there's this person on Craigslist selling some stuff including BB5 and BB7 stuff.,,

HIGH-END Bike parts. CHEAP. Shimano Campy Avid SRAM Easton Di2 etc...

These BB5's have also caught my interest...

2012 Avid BB5 Disc Brake Calipers+G3 rotors Front&Rear | eBay


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

If you must buy a new bike, sure. If you have time to keep working on a used bike, you might stick with that strategy. It's too bad about the 6700, but imagine if you'd gotten the size right.

Inexpensive mountain bikes are tough - I don't think the bike companies are trying to rip anyone off, but they're trying to stuff a bike with a whole bunch of components into a very tight pricepoint. Consumers insist on a suspension fork too, something I think is actually counter-productive until they get a bit more expensive. So you get a bike that makes some compromises, some of them pretty big.

Giant still squeezes a little more into their inexpensive bikes than other brands, I think. I doubt that you could do better on a new bike at this price.


----------



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

Hmm, shoot..I wish I could buy used but I don't know much about bikes and would feel uncomfortable buying used, but I feel as if I am missing out now buying a used bike haha. Man, I was supposed to pick up the bike tomorrow, but now I'm having second thoughts haha


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Sorry. 

If this guy still has this bike, go buy it.
@@@@ Gary Fisher [email protected]@@@


----------



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

Haha don't worry about..I will contact him but if the deal does not go through I will probably buy the Revel 1. I feel as if I'll be pretty happy camper anyways haha. Should I get better at biking, I'll probably just buy a new bike anyways. But I will look into that bike, thanks for looking on my local craigslist!


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

One way or another, get a bike. Then you can focus on the good part.


----------



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

Haha sounds good, so you recommend the Gary Fisher over the Revel? The only thing I'm worried about is since all parts are upgraded, I imagine the guy rode the bike alot, so wouldn't the parts be pretty work?

Also, some of those parts have some pretty bad reviews on MTBR (like the Truvativ Stylo 2.2 )


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

LOL, it's a singlespeed. Totally missed that. I saw the chain tensioner, and it made the shape of the chain look like on a multispeed bicycle.

You probably don't want to do a singlespeed to begin with. Climbing Bay Street or Wilder Ranch would suck.

Just get the Revel.


----------



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

AndrwSwitch said:


> LOL, it's a singlespeed. Totally missed that. I saw the chain tensioner, and it made the shape of the chain look like on a multispeed bicycle.
> 
> You probably don't want to do a singlespeed to begin with. Climbing Bay Street or Wilder Ranch would suck.
> 
> Just get the Revel.


Haha I noticed that it was singlespeed...but the guy also said hed put all gears back on.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

It drives me nuts when people post pictures of other people's bikes (mine, on one occasion!) Or from the catalog instead of pictures of the bike they're talking about.

Even if it's a parts build, I think I'd choose a multispeed/Deore Fisher with a Revelation on the front over a rec.-level new bike, especially given the Fisher is cheaper. Just so long as it goes, stops, shifts and the fork is smooth.


----------



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

Sounds good, thanks for the advice! I have just 2 more questions. Does it matter that the fork has been rebuilt? Does it matter that the guy converted the fisher to single speed from multi and will be converting back to multispeed for the sale? Sorry for all the questions and thamks for the help!


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Suspension forks are supposed to be rebuilt regularly. They get sludge in them over time, which can accelerate wear. The rebuild is to prevent this. So, yes, it matters, and it's a positive indicator that a fork that age has been rebuilt.

The way that this guy did the singlespeed conversion, it's not particularly important. It's just a matter of which parts happen to be hanging on the frame. Sometimes road bikes are vandalized or difficult-to-source parts are lost in conversions, but it should be a non-issue here. The only thing to worry about is that if he doesn't have the experience to re-gear the bike properly, you're not necessarily going to be able to tell if it's his bad tuning or actual wear to the parts that's causing the bike not to shift very well. If it shifts well and the chain's not stretched, you're golden.


----------



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

Cool, thanks for the help. Also, I do now have some pretty dumb questions haha regarding the last post. First, if the bike does not shift properly, is there a way I can tell if it is wear to the parts or his bad tuning? Also, if it does not shift smoothly, should I just not buy the bike? Lastly, is there any easy way to tell if a chain is stretched? Sorry again for all the questions but thanks so much for the help; it is extremely valuable in helping a newbie like myself choose a bike!


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Yes to both. You can use a steel tape measure or ruler to evaluate chain wear. See Sheldon Brown's web site for details. If a bike's rear derailleur is shifting badly and it's not worn out, you should be able to tune it to shift well, at least in the middle of the cassette, with the barrel adjuster. Find the article on parktool.com for details. Front derailleurs are quite sensitive to how well aligned they are in installation, but they're cheaper and wear more slowly than rear derailleurs.

Chains wear faster than cassettes and chain rings, but when they're badly stretched, they accelerate the wear on the other parts. So shifting may not degrade much until everything's trashed. Sooner or later, the chain breaks and a new one won't work without replacing the entire system. So if a chain with an acceptable state of wear shifts well on a cassette or set of chain rings, the cassette and rings are good too. If a worn chain shifts badly, you don't know anything until you replace it. If a worn chain shifts well, you are very often going to be forced to replace some other components. The chain is the cheapest part of a drivetrain, so it pays to keep an idea on wear and throw them out regularly. I probably toss about three chains for every cassette, and my chain rings last even longer.

Since you may not be able to tell what it'll cost to fix a bike that can't be made to shift well, or that shifts well but has a worn chain, I think it's best to pass on those. It can be over $200, at worst. Actually, maybe more in a real worst-case wear situation. But I think a bike with a good chain and consistent shifting is a pretty safe buy, assuming good function of the other components.


----------



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

Thanks for that info...I feel a lot more confident about buying a bike used now and will make sure to measure chain length tomorrow when I meet up with the guy. Luckily, I was able to make sure I could identify if a chain is worn or not and what a new chain looks like on a ruler since my roommate just got a new chain a few days ago; Sheldon Brown's article on measuring chain wear and his site in general is extremely helpful so thanks for that link too. Hopefully all goes well tomorrow!


----------



## bsfswisher (Sep 13, 2011)

Got the bike! Paid $420. Thanks so much for all the help; pics will be up soon!


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Awesome! Hope it works out well for you.


----------

