# Do not neglect the importance of standover clearance!



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

Last weekend, I finally got the chance to get to the advanced sections of our local trail. When I tried a very steep climb, I stalled before getting to the top. As a result, my groin hit the top tube doing an emergency dismount. 

It took about 5 minutes or so before the pain totally went away and regain my strength. That incident made me regret following the advice of the "experts" who say that standover clearance is not that important. I surely don't want other beginners to make this same mistake that I did. 

I hate to give up the 29 inch wheels, but I think I will have to go with the smaller 650b on my next bike purchase. I can't find any 29er hardtail that would give me enough toptube clearance for the geometry that fits me.

By the way, I got relatively short legs for my torso. While my current bike frame provides zero standover clearance, the smaller frame would only provide me half an inch of clearance.


----------



## Hardeho (May 13, 2014)

I don't think your supposed to dismount, like, straight forward onto the top bar.


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

Stand over matters a little bit, should be able to stand with tt not shoving the jewels back up inside. Sounds like ur frame is noticeably too big if u can't. But if you fall on the tt with emergency dismount, it happens to all of us but we only do it once. Emergency dismount is lock brakes and drop to the side. Partial issue was just having to learn how to bail out without getting nailed. AGAIN WEVE ALL DONE IT, but stand over isn't a big issue and smaller wheeled bikes dont mean more stand over for the frame size. In some cases frame design can be different allowing more stand over but honestly bbs are usually fairly close to the distance off the ground.
Sent from my Nokia Stupid Phone using Tapatalk


----------



## SandSpur (Mar 19, 2013)

mtb_beginner said:


> Last weekend, I finally got the chance to get to the advanced sections of our local trail. When I tried a very steep climb, I stalled before getting to the top. As a result, my groin hit the top tube doing an emergency dismount.
> 
> It took about 5 minutes or so before the pain totally went away and regain my strength. That incident made me regret following the advice of the "experts" who say that standover clearance is not that important. I surely don't want other beginners to make this same mistake that I did.
> 
> ...


how tall are you?


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Sorry about your fall.

Crashing is an all bets are off situation.

I'm not changing my line. This being a forum, of course you're welcome to contradict me.


----------



## AgrAde (Feb 21, 2012)

Low standover frames are great, bikes like the kona process are basically porn for me. Easier to move around on while riding, more maneuverable in the air, and dabbing a foot in really stupid places is less likely to be a problem. If it comes to throwing the bike away in a big nasty crash, it's easier to separate from the bike.

I have short-ish legs for my height and the difference between a high and low frame is very noticable to me, so I feel your pain. Hope you find something that gives you confidence.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

I agree with the OP 100%, standover clearance is important IMO. I'm tall with long legs so I've never really had an issue with (the lack of) it but sympathize with shorter people who struggle to find a good fitting frame that has any clearance.

A couple of days ago I had to bail on some steep tech and I can tell you I was mighty grateful to have that "space" when I put my foot down, and there really wasn't much of an option to pitch the frame to the side (cliff).


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

SandSpur said:


> how tall are you?


I'm 170cm in height. My in seam is barely 75cm.


----------



## Rei Miraa (Jul 31, 2014)

I am short too. Looking at new bikes it's hard to find bikes that fit me. I also like the idea that the center of gravity is lowered too.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

tigris99 said:


> Stand over matters a little bit, should be able to stand with tt not shoving the jewels back up inside. Sounds like ur frame is noticeably too big if u can't...


I'm in between the Small and Medium frame geometry-wise (I got a Medium of the Specialized Crave).



tigris99 said:


> ... But if you fall on the tt with emergency dismount, it happens to all of us but we only do it once. Emergency dismount is *lock brakes and drop to the side*...


That is a great tip. I will try to do that the next time I find myself in a similar situation where the bike's tendency is to fall backward.



tigris99 said:


> ...smaller wheeled bikes dont mean more stand over for the frame size. In some cases frame design can be different allowing more stand over but honestly bbs are usually fairly close to the distance off the ground


I look more on the reach and stack measurement rather than the Small/Medium/Large designation of the frames.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

AndrwSwitch said:


> ...
> I'm not changing my line. This being a forum, of course you're welcome to contradict me.


So you're one of them? No problem. You stand by what you think works for you. I stand by what works for me.


----------



## IPunchCholla (Dec 8, 2013)

mtb_beginner said:


> Last weekend, I finally got the chance to get to the advanced sections of our local trail. When I tried a very steep climb, I stalled before getting to the top. As a result, my groin hit the top tube doing an emergency dismount.
> 
> It took about 5 minutes or so before the pain totally went away and regain my strength. That incident made me regret following the advice of the "experts" who say that standover clearance is not that important. I surely don't want other beginners to make this same mistake that I did.
> 
> ...


I'm right there myself. 170cm with a 78cm inseam. For 2929er hardtail I had to run a small with a longer stem. Fit ok but want ideal. Went to a 27.t full suspension and have both the reach I want and the stand over.

While ett and reach are more important, stand over matters. So many bikes I had to rule out because every dismount would have been awkward. Oh well find one that fits perfect and love it.

One thing I do try to do, though, when I stall on a steep climb, is to lock brakes and slide off the saddle to the rear of the bike. That usually puts me on the trail rather than towards the side, where there is often a steep drop.


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

Ya didn't think about side bail issue in some regions trails. Here if its steep down on one side its steep up on the other.

Oh and OP, dumb mistake I forgot to add in my bail technique in regards to steep climb, sorry, LEAN ALL THE WAY FORWARD at the same time. Kind if a "crap, lock brakes lean forward and to the side". At the same time. Can't say it will always work but hasn't failed me and allows me to lay bike over instead of me talking in soprano or bike ends up tumbling. Usually I can actually stay mostly on the bike with one foot on the ground bike angled under me, safely finish dismount and walk up the rest of the way. Its just one way to do it and it works for me.

Hope the boys feel better and hopes it doesn't happen again (this thread causes pain from memory of me doing it lol.) 
Sent from my Nokia Stupid Phone using Tapatalk


----------



## jeffj (Jan 13, 2004)

Hard to believe that 1/2" of standover would have spared you from that particular testicular distress.


----------



## TheGweed (Jan 30, 2010)

jeffj said:


> Hard to believe that 1/2" of standover would have spared you from that particular testicular distress.


Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding....we have a winnah!


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

jeffj said:


> Hard to believe that 1/2" of standover would have spared you from that particular testicular distress.


??? 
I don't believe it neither. That's why I didn't see any advantage of just going with the smaller frame size of the same bike model. And that's why I'm now considering on going with 650b.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Wheel size won't make a huge difference either.

Frame design of individual bikes makes more difference. I was helping a guy with this at the shop yesterday.

He rented a bike recently and was uncomfortable with dismounting it. So he had questions about the way that felt and with how he might find something that was more comfortable. I would have been an idiot to discount his feelings and say that they were not important.

But let's be clear here, standover clearance is NOT an important component of fit. It is a component of personal preference, because for some people it matters more than for others. As you can see from many responses, many riders simply use technique to avoid the sort of testicular distress that you experienced. What do you think riders did when mountain bikes had horizontal top tubes? Bikes today have more standover clearance than bikes two decades ago.

Some frame designs offer a lot more clearance than others, but absolutely, going with a smaller size will give you more clearance. I am between a medium and a large and while I'm comfortable riding large mtb's, I ALWAYS size down to a medium when I buy one. This gives me more standover and makes it easier for me to move around on the bike. I don't care about the standover, but I do care about how easily I can move around on the bike. Simply another personal preference.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

Maybe I should also point out that I'm riding a HARDTAIL. Those who don't see the issue are probably riding full-suspension trail bikes. 

In case you guys never noticed, many FS bikes are designed with generous standover clearance across all frame sizes, regardless of wheel size. This is not the case when it comes to hardtail 29ers.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I notice a lot of Specialized hardtails have really postmodern looking designs, with lots of bends for extra clearance, lately. You might look for a frame that has your right fit and also has better clearance. I bet it exists.

I have pretty average proportions, so I've only ever had bikes without a little clearance when they've been road bikes. I have racked myself on a mtb just because, like someone else noted, it's not like having the clearance relative to a flat surface means much when most trails in the hills and mountains are bench cuts. But I do find myself standing over my bike with my feet planted on occasion if it's a commuter and I'm at a really long traffic light or maybe I'm at the top of a flow line and I'm waiting for someone to get more of a head start before I get started.

So I dunno, maybe I'd have a different reaction if I ever found myself considering a MTB that fit me but didn't have any clearance. I just never have.


----------



## 70sSanO (Nov 20, 2013)

I really think you need to stay with what you have for now and work on a dismount technique that work for you that you don't have to think about.

The reason is that while the standover height may be more today than two decades ago, I will defer to NateHawk's real experience in a shop, it is a quickly diminishing amount with today's sloped top tubes.

In your case it may not have made any difference what bike you where riding if you literally stalled on a climb and if the bike started to move back down the hill as you tried to dismount without laying the bike down at all, it would have happened.

The reality of your particular situation is that you need to know when you are getting into trouble before you are too exhausted to do anything about it. This is a little different than a crash that happens so fast. I think everyone has been at a point where you just don't want to give up, but at the same you need to be prepared to bail.

John


----------



## Joules (Oct 12, 2005)

mtb_beginner said:


> Maybe I should also point out that I'm riding a HARDTAIL. Those who don't see the issue are probably riding full-suspension trail bikes.


I ride hardtails too, and have been riding since long before suspension bikes existed. Standover didn't used to be a thing anyone talked or worried about. Suspension bikes necessarily sit higher when unweighted, so this isn't a suspension/hardtail question.

The difference between your crash and what most of us experience, with respect to the importance of standover is really that most of us are more protective of our nuts than you apparently are. I for one don't jump nut-first onto my bike, even in a crash.


----------



## bennyblanco2121 (Feb 2, 2012)

You can always buy a frame like the yelli screamy.

Sent from my iPhone in New Orleans.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

I've done similar before and I'm sure you and I are not the only two that this happened to, but is it the issue of stand over height? You are shorter than me and yet riding a 29er a size larger, I too have shorter legs and longer torso, and small fit me well.

Even if you have 2 extra inches you'd still split the top tube if the trail is steep enough and or rocky( lost footing ). It's important but not that relevant once you are one the trail. My small Mojo super low top tube can easily split me at a certain uphill parts of the trail. The manufacture would have design bikes with much lower stand over if people are splitting balls on the trails, it's called liability. Just spend a couple of session and practice several ways to dismount from the bike one the ascend and descend, you'll be all good and ready for the next adventure.


----------



## pzvi (Aug 15, 2013)

70sSanO said:


> I really think you need to stay with what you have for now and work on a dismount technique that work for you that you don't have to think about.
> 
> The reason is that while the standover height may be more today than two decades ago, I will defer to NateHawk's real experience in a shop, it is a quickly diminishing amount with today's sloped top tubes.
> 
> ...


Being short stature, I can certainly related to the OP's concern but you are right in that it is a matter of knowing when to bail out. Many times, I stubbornly trying to save the situation when it was beyond my skill and stature to do. I either did what the OT did or worse, once I sprained my lower back when I stepped off the bike to the right side while the bike was falling away to the left. Instead of just letting the bike fall on it's own, I tried to kept control of it. And this was all a no speed dead stop on a climb kind of fall. I guess I should try to pick up those fighter pilot mentality in which one got to know when to hit the ejection button and bailed out. Hope the OP is feeling better.

YKN


----------



## TracksFromHell (Jul 9, 2014)

bennyblanco2121 said:


> You can always buy a frame like the yelli screamy.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone in New Orleans.


Ditto. Get a bike you feel comfortable with while learning. Look at Chromag Stylus too.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

bennyblanco2121 said:


> You can always buy a frame like the yelli screamy.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone in New Orleans.





TracksFromHell said:


> Ditto. Get a bike you feel comfortable with while learning. Look at Chromag Stylus too.


Thanks. Those are good options to consider for my next bike.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

70sSanO said:


> I really think you need to stay with what you have for now ...


 That's the practical choice for now because I have used up my bike budget for the next 10 months already.



70sSanO said:


> ...In your case it may not have made any difference what bike you where riding if you literally stalled on a climb and if the bike started to move back down the hill as you tried to dismount without laying the bike down at all, it would have happened....


My previous bike had an inch of standover clearance and I've been in a similar situation using that other bike. So I'm pretty sure it would have made a difference. As I have mentioned, I got ZERO standover clearance on my current bike.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

NateHawk said:


> Wheel size won't make a huge difference either.
> 
> Frame design of individual bikes makes more difference...
> ....
> Some frame designs offer a lot more clearance than others, but absolutely, going with a smaller size will give you more clearance.....


I agree, frame design helps. But not all bike makers put the smaller riders into consideration. In reality, wheel size make a huge difference. Take the Scott Scale 29er vs the Scale 650b, for example. The small Scale 29er gives a 756mm of standover, while the 27.5 inch version gives a generous 728mm of standover. Thats a whopping 28mm difference between the two wheel sizes.


----------



## 70sSanO (Nov 20, 2013)

mtb_beginner said:


> My previous bike had an inch of standover clearance and I've been in a similar situation using that other bike. So I'm pretty sure it would have made a difference. As I have mentioned, I got ZERO standover clearance on my current bike.


That may be true, I don't know the exact situation. If you had no place to lay the bike down and no clearance, it becomes a lot more difficult to avoid the situation where you ended up. Your experience with your old bike probably didn't help either.

I will say that a medium is probably too big for you. I am 175cm and my inseam is around 74cm so I have a longer torso and shorter legs. I ride older medium hardtails and I do have some clearance so I am not exactly in your situation. But I have crashed enough, slower speeds, and I have been able to get the bike leaning enough to avoid an unpleasant interface with the top tube. I have split the top tube on descents and have narrowly missed getting crunched. Then again I have had years of riding a slightly too big road bike and I have to lean the bike on every stop to avoid the top tube.

All that said, there are probably not a lot of modern mountain bike frames that will give you as much overall top tube clearance, seat to head tube, as an older more parallel top tube frame. I'm not trying to persuade you to turn back the clock because newer bikes are better, but it doesn't take a mental giant to look at a sloping top tube and conclude that you may only have a few inches of real clearance before the top tube slope catches you. And if you are going down hill and the bike stops faster than you do, you better get that bike leaning.

John


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

It's no surprise if you think about where bike design has gone. On those older bikes, the front ends were MUCH lower than they are now. Smaller wheels, less (or zero) fork travel. Wheel size isn't the whole story, though. Look at similar 29ers next to something with smaller wheels right next to each other. The Scale is a good example. The 29er has a more sloping TT than the 650b version. At the HT, the 29er is much taller, but at the ST, it's a different story. It's just the nature of those bikes. The Canfield posted above is a perfect example of a 29er designed to offer extra standover clearance. Boom. Frame design taking a problem that some people rank as a priority and offering a solution.

Standover is STILL NOT A FIT ISSUE. It's preference. If you want more standover, then don't ride/buy bikes that don't give you the standover clearance that you want.


----------



## dfrink (Nov 6, 2013)

At 5'6" standover height matters to me, which is why I chose to stay with a smaller size tire bike on my last purchase and haven't jumped to a 29er (and likely never will). FYI, Santa Cruz is offering some of their bikes in 27.5 for the S, M sizes, and 29 for L, XL sizes, which they claim is for better standover height for shorter riders. You tall guys never have to worry about that (but I never hit my head on low lying obstacles so we're even).


----------



## scmtbiker (Jan 11, 2007)

I love 650b. I am 6 feet and have never ridden a 29. Sorry for your fall but there are 29ers out there that would fit you. Test ride at several shops and buy what works best for you.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

I tried the section of the trail for the second time around yesterday. This time, I didn't experience any issue. 

Knowing what comes up ahead in the trail made a difference.

I think I'll just continue riding on my 29er until I get enough fund for the next bike.


----------



## 70sSanO (Nov 20, 2013)

mtb_beginner said:


> I tried the section of the trail for the second time around yesterday. This time, I didn't experience any issue.
> 
> Knowing what comes up ahead in the trail made a difference.
> 
> I think I'll just continue riding on my 29er until I get enough fund for the next bike.


Once you have a few more miles on difficult terrain, you will be in a better position to know what you want in your next bike.

Good job!

John


----------



## db440 (Jul 1, 2014)

I recently bought a 29er with almost no so clearance. I was a bit concerned about this, but the bike shop owner was 100% convinced that I needed the medium frame even though by the charts I would have fit the small better. Also after researching here and other places the majority of folks seem to agree it is not a fit situation and is rather one of personal preference, as has been mentioned here in this thread.

I've had three occasions where I have come close to hitting my bar like you did, two were the exact same situation. All I can say is I got my feet to the highest ground and stayed out of the way! There is a little more time when you are going slow, that is for sure. 

I am loving my bike a lot, but I too am considering a slightly smaller frame/wheel size for my next investment. Sorry to hear about your misfortune, it sounds like it will all work out, however. Have fun out there!


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

We have all been in the situations where one thing leads to another we crash or stall, it's easy to blame the equipments but in the end it's our situation awareness and skills. If I have a front wheel washout, clearly it's because the front tire did not bite, but do I blame that on the lack of aggressive side knob or failure to load the tire and choose better angle of attack. 




Sent from my iPad mini using Tapatalk HD


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

Since many suggest that standover clearance is not an essential aspect of bike fit (though the bike manual says it is), would you guys agree that it is as important as having a helmet to protect you in case?

Anyways, I'm regaining my confidence on my 29er. I'm ready to explore another trails close by.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

You can always choose to wear a cup for extra protection. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Your post is misleading that's why many disagreed with you. 

You need a bike with good fit and some stand over clearance, what's enough in your original post. 3"? 5"? You stalled on a steep climbing section and you incorrectly dismounted from the bike then you blamed the bike design? It happens to many of us if not most one time or another but so far you are the only one I see put the blame on the stand over height and not the situation. 

Picking a smaller size would only give you no more than one inch at best, you needed at least 2" extra, you are not going to find it. According to your op you pick one with zero clearance. Which "expert" told you to do that?

Like Andrw said when it comes to crashing all bets are off. No disclaimers required. If you plan to crash then be prepare for it, I do, I have helmet, dropper post, knee/shin and elbow pads, flats, body armor, full face helmet, in any combo. 

Bottom line, use the commonsense and pick the bike that fits properly. 

Sent from my iPad mini using Tapatalk HD


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

mimi1885 said:


> According to your op you pick one with zero clearance. Which "expert" told you to do that?


There seem to be quite a few "experts" in here that go on about how standover is "NOT A FIT ISSUE". For most of us it starts to become a fit issue at some point. Perhaps these experts have such great skills that it doesn't matter to them how high the toptube is, but for those of us without their skills, it certainly does matter.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

The last time I remember smacking my nuts on my top tube is when I was going down a loose chute with little traction, with roots and rocks buried under all the powdered dirt, and I went to dab on the inside to try and follow a line on the right. I missed it and hit a drop I didn't think was very rollable, and the front dove down and I lost my other foot, and rolled down the rest of the hill riding on the top tube. Didn't really hurt, surprisingly.

The scariest close call I had was trying to ride a log bridge across a dried up creek bed which was covered in leaves. I stalled in the middle, put a foot down, but had lost my balance and kept tipping to the side. I wound up jumping with the bike to the ditch about 5' below. I landed with the bike still between my legs, with my feet on the ground. Luckily, it was a soft landing and I had enough clearance.

The hardest I ever hit my nuts was trying to go mach speed through an abandoned rocky road that had a slight decline (part of some abandoned ski lift resort in New York). One of the rocks threw me off course, and wound up going off the side, which was about a 4' drop from the surface of the road. The bike wedged into a tree and my nuts flew directly into the stem. I was there scrunched up taking labored breaths for a while until my buddies finally caught up and got my bike out while I climbed up, and then proceeded scrunch up on the ground, rocking side to side for a while longer.

The top 2 scenarios, I was on my Superfly 100, which I love the geo on. The last scenario was on a motobecane 29 ti hardtail with Reba RL fork... definitely not the ideal geo and fork for going fast on rough mountainous terrain (hikers I pass by are seriously surprised I could ride a bike on it). Not surprisingly, I recommend the Superfly, but not the Motobecane 29 HT (for many reasons other than these ball busting scenarios).


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

andytiedye said:


> There seem to be quite a few "experts" in here that go on about how standover is "NOT A FIT ISSUE". For most of us it starts to become a fit issue at some point. Perhaps these experts have such great skills that it doesn't matter to them how high the toptube is, but for those of us without their skills, it certainly does matter.


Unless you are getting a custom bikes or women specific bikes most bike frame would only allow 1"-1.5" of stand over clearance plus the extra bit where many manufactures take the measurement(usually to your benefit). The modern radically slope toptube is already provide more clearance than ever, can you imagine the oldies bikes, all straight tube.

Nobody is saying ignore the stand over height as long as you get a bit of clearance. It's ridiculous to just buy the bike and ignore whatever height. You are not going to find any bikes with crazy clearance. One or even two inches looks tight already as your Baggie shorts would already rub the top tube. They are saying don't compromise reach for SO, as it's not effecting the bike handling as reach would. Don't throw your commonsense out the window now.

We are not talking great skills here just basic scan ahead instead of looking in front of your front wheel and make plan as you go. I don't know what other "experts" would have done but I'd simply stand up and trackstand, even with a torquey gear I can buy a few extra seconds so I can decide what to do, or just simply dismount and try it again.

It's not about skills really, it's about planning. That's why scan ahead is so important, it slows things down in your brain so nothing comes at you as a surprise.

Sent from my iPad mini using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Rei Miraa (Jul 31, 2014)

I need a low stand over to be able to reach my leg over( I do angle the bike over towards me). Then I step on the pedal to then get my butt onto the seat(which is the right height for me to pedal). If I am on my seat I can't touch the ground. Needless to say next bike will be 27.5 and not 29". 5'1" if I stand tall. Yes it's a comfort preference to have stand over room. but I feel it's a fit issue for me because I'm so short.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

If standover is really a big deal for you, it sounds like you'd be interested in women's specific geo. Something akin to those step through frames. Totally not saying you're like a girl or anything...


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

mimi1885 said:


> ... Your post is misleading that's why many disagreed with you...


 I was actually the one who got misled in my buying decision. I started this thread to help other beginners make an informed decision.


----------



## Multitrack (Aug 26, 2014)

Luckily, I've never injured the jewels, but I have always had a problem with selecting a frame. I enjoy older, suspension-less hardtails and they work for me with rail trails and light woods trails. I have a normal-sized torso and short legs. So, if I get a bike with a suitable standover, then the cockpit up on top is too small. If I size for the cockpit up top to be right, then there is little to no top tube clearance. I find that it is more critical for comfort, enjoyment for me to have the proper size up top, and that it trumps the clearance. 

I haven't really found a great solution for this. But, what I have come up wiht is that I have three hard-tail bikes. One has a larger frame and cushy upper cockpit. I have mulit-track tires on it and use it for street/light trails. Next, I have my trail bike. It has a smaller frame that I am just a little more cramped on, but I have about .75" or so of top-tube clearance and had to modify neck to be out further and the seat is back a little. I find it rides differently depending on where the seat is. Lastly, I have an all-purpose middle-of-the-road bike which I ride most of the time. It has less-aggressive tires that are more knobby than street tires. If I could find the right frame, then I would just need a couple sets of wheels depending on the type riding I am going to do, but I cannot seem to find it. I have considered more aggressive woman's frames, but then the cockpit is usually just too small. 

I have never been quite able to get the exact right frame, although an older, smaller framed Gary Fisher Tassajara which I don't own comes close as it has a little clearance for me and it seems a slightly stretched cockpit, for a little more comfort. 

I have not had the opportunity to try some of the newer angled bikes that have a triangle that provides more room back near the seat and the back of the bar. That could also be an option, but I am older and like more upright riding, now, with longer rides. One other thing I would like to add is that sometimes a larger frame fits better, clearance-wise, because on older bikes with more relaxed geometry, on a small-framed bike, the top tube is at a greater angle, so even though the clearance by the seat is better, it slopes up, where as on the larger frame, it is more horizontal. That works out better for me, except that the cockpit on the larger frame is just slightly too long and I usually have to modify the seat and or find a stem that is shorter. I think that the newer frames, though having more clearance, might be sloped more like a smaller frame and not have enough clearance far enough before the top bar rises probably to accommodate front suspension.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

I have little standover and don't recall having trouble with the top tube. There have been a few "encounters" with the rear of the stem, though. I wish somebody would start mass producing sturdy 26er frames meant for short rigid forks. That would let me have a little bit of meaningful standover clearance.


----------



## goodmojo (Sep 12, 2011)

mtb_beginner said:


> ???
> I don't believe it neither. That's why I didn't see any advantage of just going with the smaller frame size of the same bike model. And that's why I'm now considering on going with 650b.


For most fast crashes, 2 inches isnt going to matter either. If it is a slow crash then you should have plenty of time regardless of standover.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

goodmojo said:


> For most fast crashes, 2 inches isnt going to matter either. If it is a slow crash then you should have plenty of time regardless of standover.


Who said standover matters on a fast crash?

But a slow crash is preventable with some standover clearance (combined with tiptoeing + some luck) as I have experienced on my previous bike. The more toptube clearance, the less you have to rely on luck to prevent a slow crash.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

mtb_beginner said:


> Last weekend, I finally got the chance to get to the advanced sections of our local trail. When I tried a very steep climb, I stalled before getting to the top. As a result, my groin hit the top tube doing an emergency dismount.
> 
> It took about 5 minutes or so before the pain totally went away and regain my strength. That incident made me regret following the advice of the "experts" who say that standover clearance is not that important. I surely don't want other beginners to make this same mistake that I did.
> 
> ...


So you blame the experts and not your lack of skills.

Sounds good to me.

FYI, I have a friend who is 5'2" and on a 29er very comfortably and with plenty of stand over clearance. So maybe you just picked the wrong bike.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

mtb_beginner said:


> I was actually the one who got misled in my buying decision. I started this thread to help other beginners make an informed decision.


It's not very informative when you did not choose the right fit for yourself. If memory serves me right your decision was based on "
* Re: Smaller vs Bigger - which frame is generally stronger? 
*

_ I guess I wasn't clear enough. I'm not after the lightest bike I can get...but rather the theoretically stronger frame size for a given bike model that I would choose.

For example, I'm comfortable with the fit of either the small or the medium frame size on the Specialized Crave. If I could verify that the medium size frame has more reinforced design for strength to carry heavier riders, I would surely go with that. If not, common knowledge tells me that for a given tube size or diameter, the shorter the length the stiffer it gets. "_​
Go back and read that thread, I'm still standing by my respond to that post. I even suggested that you check the women's lounge for smaller frame.

forums.mtbr.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=11410398


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

mtb_beginner said:


> Who said standover matters on a fast crash?
> 
> But a slow crash is preventable with some standover clearance (combined with tiptoeing + some luck) as I have experienced on my previous bike. The more toptube clearance, the less you have to rely on luck to prevent a slow crash.


With skill, you learn to bail out before a slow crash results in injury. There's no luck involved. Practice and skill. And hurting yourself a few times. Stop blaming the bike when your skills have room to grow.

Besides, even though hitting your nuts on the top tube might smart for a few minutes, you didn't mention anything about a hospital visit so it doesn't count as an injury, anyway. Maybe I should blame my bike for smashing my knuckles on a tree a few weeks ago (even though I chose a poor line too close to the tree). Or maybe because I crashed in a rock garden, the company who designed my bike should be blamed.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

mimi1885 said:


> It's not very informative when you did not choose the right fit for yourself. If memory serves me right your decision was based on "
> * Re: Smaller vs Bigger - which frame is generally stronger?
> *
> 
> ...


That was not thread I was referring to when I said I got misled into believing standover clearance is not important.

If you will re-read that thread, you won't find in there that I asked for opinion on standover clearance. What I asked there was opinion on frame strength, because standover was no longer important to me when I created that thread.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

NateHawk said:


> With skill, you learn to bail out before a slow crash results in injury. There's no luck involved. Practice and skill. And hurting yourself a few times. Stop blaming the bike when your skills have room to grow.
> 
> Besides, even though hitting your nuts on the top tube might smart for a few minutes, you didn't mention anything about a hospital visit so it doesn't count as an injury, anyway. Maybe I should blame my bike for smashing my knuckles on a tree a few weeks ago (even though I chose a poor line too close to the tree). Or maybe because I crashed in a rock garden, the company who designed my bike should be blamed.


Your line of reasoning is similar to those who keep on telling others they don't need to use clipless pedals, and that they just need to polish their skills to get good on flat pedals.

I already mentioned more than once, having standover clearance helped me avoid getting hurt in the past.

Just because you're very good in avoiding the toptube hitting your groin regardless of standover doesn't mean all of us should be that good as well.

Come on, guys. There is a reason for clipless pedals instead of flats....There is a reason for FS instead of HT...There is a reason for 650b instead of 29er....And there is a reason why some toptubes just like on that Yelli Screamy are shaped to give a rider some clearance.

What is not important to most of you is important to the rest of us.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

riding a mountain bike requires skills. you can't expect your equipment to make up for ALL of your deficiencies in skill. you have to develop some skill somewhere along the way. you are going to hurt yourself. we all do when our skill is deficient. some of us will practice those deficient skills until we nail it. some of us will look to buy something to make up for a skill deficiency. it doesn't change that we need to learn that skill eventually.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

mtb_beginner said:


> That was not thread I was referring to when I said I got misled into believing standover clearance is not important.
> 
> If you will re-read that thread, you won't find in there that I asked for opinion on standover clearance. What I asked there was opinion on frame strength, because standover was no longer important to me when I created that thread.


None you are absolutely right, you did not ask about the stand over but many people gave you the pros and cons of the different sizes. If you have selective understanding of the posts then I'm sorry. Just my curiosity why did you choose the med over small? Was it the additional inch or reach or extra 42mm of standover.



mtb_beginner said:


> Your line of reasoning is similar to those who keep on telling others they don't need to use clipless pedals, and that they just need to polish their skills to get good on flat pedals.
> 
> I already mentioned more than once, having standover clearance helped me avoid getting hurt in the past.
> 
> ...


You are just the gift that keeps on giving!

Many posters and I agree that your problem especially this instance was the result of your lack of planning and a bit lack of skills. It happens to all of us who ride off-road. Yet you came in here and blame it on the bike designs.

Don't get me started on clipless and flats. I read your post about them before and I know that you have no understanding how pedaling works when it comes to pedals types.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I'm always surprised at how contentious an issue fit is.

I want a bike that doesn't hurt me when I ride it and that I can handle well in my typical riding context.

That's it.

Achieving that is sometimes a little tricky, but I think it's really only complicated when we make it complicated or someone else obfuscates it to make it seem like we need their product.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

It seems weird to me that people are hammering on the OP for his "lack of skills" regarding this issue. I repeat myself but I'll say it again anyway, plenty of standover clearance (due to height and long legs) has saved my @ss (so to speak) on numerous occasions over the years and if for some reason I had to ride a frame with less than none I wouldn't be so happy about it. Standover _is_ a fit issue if that is important to you, and isn't if you could care less. Neither opinion is invalid.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

I do wish that I have a 3 foot long legs too but it is what it is. OP was complaining about a stall and his misstep that splited his Jimmy. It was a freak accident not a design fault. We see posts here all the time about people asking how to do better the next time around.

If I crash from locking my brake I'd post a thread about how to modulate, weight distribution or brake better, not blaming the power of the brake. Where does it stop, can't negotiate the switchback? Post another thread about the wide turning radius of a 29er? These are skill related not fit related. If you can't straddle your bike because of lack of clearance then it's a fit issue. 

I have ridden a large even extra large 29er before, I was doing ok on the bike but it does not mean that I would take it out on my trail riding. I have no doubt and feel bad for op. I'm sure this top tube thing is going to bother him for a long time til he switches to something with more clearance. He chose the larger frame option with less clearance(he said he fits comfortably on both small and med) then come and complaint about getting bad advices when he crashed.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Since I prefer maximum standover and also like the feeling of a lower center of gravity I look for frames with a low bottom bracket. It's a trade-off and some people don't like low bb's but it _is_ a choice, and I would suggest the OP to consider that number when looking at his/her next frame. Nothing wrong with personal preference.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> Since I prefer maximum standover and also like the feeling of a lower center of gravity I look for frames with a low bottom bracket. It's a trade-off and some people don't like low bb's but it _is_ a choice, and I would suggest the OP to consider that number when looking at his/her next frame. Nothing wrong with personal preference.


Ibis, Pivot, and Turner are good starts DW Links bike offer low BB and longer top tube for deliciously fun corner railing session. You may have to live with low standover though.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

mimi1885 said:


> ...Just my curiosity why did you choose the med over small? Was it the additional inch or reach or extra 42mm of standover...


I figured the Medium would give me the least possibility of my foot hitting the front wheel by accident. I calculated it based on the distance of the BB to the front axle, the wheel radius, and the crank length.



mimi1885 said:


> ...Don't get me started on clipless and flats. I read your post about them before and I know that you have no understanding how pedaling works when it comes to pedals types.


You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand clipless and flat pedals. I came from RC Helicopter hobby which require more complex understanding of how things interact. Bike pedals are too simple in comparison. I know exactly the pros and cons of both clipless and flats without bias.

Needless to say, that topic is outside the intended scope of this thread. I just used it for analogy.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

NateHawk said:


> riding a mountain bike requires skills. you can't expect your equipment to make up for ALL of your deficiencies in skill. you have to develop some skill somewhere along the way. you are going to hurt yourself. we all do when our skill is deficient. some of us will practice those deficient skills until we nail it. some of us will look to buy something to make up for a skill deficiency. it doesn't change that we need to learn that skill eventually.


OP uses the handle "mtb_beginner" and posts in the beginner's forum.
Methinks he is working on improving his skills, but as everyone has observed here, skills take some time to develop, and it might be prudent to have a bit more margin for error while learning them.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Being short legged and liking bikes with longer top tubes years before it was cool, I have spent many years on bikes that had zero standover clearance.

Total non-issue in my experience.


----------



## TracksFromHell (Jul 9, 2014)

Who cares about standover clearance? My [email protected] do. Especially when I am on some TTF and need to dab to stay upright at slow speed or need to straddle my bike between two seemingly impassable objects. I suppose if you do XC then you won't worry too much. But for AM and Enduro and technical trails, low standover is a real plus.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I was just thinking on my ride yesterday, "Don't neglect the importance of narrow enough bars." Wide bars can put your hand right into a tree. Narrower than shoulder width doesn't really buy any extra clearance, so we should really all cut our bars to shoulder width to optimize safety.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

AndrwSwitch said:


> I was just thinking on my ride yesterday, "Don't neglect the importance of narrow enough bars." Wide bars can put your hand right into a tree. Narrower than shoulder width doesn't really buy any extra clearance, so we should really all cut our bars to shoulder width to optimize safety.


Funny - I've been running pretty wide bars so far this season, like 765mm or so. I've been ticking them off trees pretty regularly and decided last night that I am gonna cut em down a bit. They'll match the overall aesthetic of my super-low standover, clipless pedal and non-dropper seatpost equipped, coil fork suspended, 26" wheeled. 30+ lb custom steel hardtail w/ 14 5/8" chainstays. On which I managed to finally finish the ride in front of a buddy on his 11 speed, carbon fiber and wheeled 29" FS high-dollar uberbike last nite.

You always have to take it with a grain of salt when somebody recommends exactly what they use right across the board. It's usually a good indicator that they have limited exposure and experience with a variety of riding styles, terrain, and/or products.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Dude - sarcastic post. 

I probably won't go 765 anytime soon. But I'm glad I decided to give my 665 or so bars some time to grow on me. My previous bike had 585, so of course I was tempted to get out a hack saw immediately.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Dude - sarcastic post.
> 
> I probably won't go 765 anytime soon. But I'm glad I decided to give my 665 or so bars some time to grow on me. My previous bike had 585, so of course I was tempted to get out a hack saw immediately.


No worries - I knew it was. 

Just a timely mention, as the wide bars have been forcing me come almost to a stop at a few spots on my go-to trails at a few spots, and there is definitely more missing bark now than there used to be on any number of trees. Only a matter of time before a finger gets involved, so the tube-cutter is coming out.


----------



## wandering_1 (Sep 14, 2014)

Couldn't agree more. Ignore standover at your peril. When I worked at my lbs I made a point of not selling a bike to someone who said they intended to do serious riding unless they had a minimum of 2" of TT clearance. Not just to save their future offspring but because if they don't have that there is a very good chance the bike is simply too big for them in general. Also in the future if you are going uphill and have to bail at a low speed just lean to the side for a one foot dismount. Your boys will thank you.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

wandering_1 said:


> Couldn't agree more. Ignore standover at your peril. When I worked at my lbs I made a point of not selling a bike to someone who said they intended to do serious riding unless they had a minimum of 2" of TT clearance. Not just to save their future offspring but because if they don't have that there is a very good chance the bike is simply too big for them in general. Also in the future if you are going uphill and have to bail at a low speed just lean to the side for a one foot dismount. Your boys will thank you.


Minimum of 2" of clearance? Many full suspension bikes may be, hardtail? seriously?


----------



## wandering_1 (Sep 14, 2014)

mimi1885 said:


> Minimum of 2" of clearance? Many full suspension bikes may be, hardtail? seriously?


I should have specified that I did this when someone was buying their first bike. Obviously if an experienced rider tells me they like their balls nearly brushing the top tube I'm not going to tell them they are wrong. But in general I believe in having decent clearance even on a hardtail.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

wandering_1 said:


> I should have specified that I did this when someone was buying their first bike. Obviously if an experienced rider tells me they like their balls nearly brushing the top tube I'm not going to tell them they are wrong. But in general I believe in having decent clearance even on a hardtail.


Beginners and first time bike buyers usually would go for 29er hardtail, if they are 5'8" only a few would have longer than 32" inseam, if they are Asian with longer torso and shorter legs forget it. Most standover are in the neighborhood of 28.5"-30.5". Most beginners would not op to go with WSD frame, what do you have to sell to them. Spech Myka is about the closest thing to what you were describing. What bike brands did you sell?

It is what it is. You are not going to find a lot of HT frames that give minimum 2" of clearance and still fit the riders elsewhere on the geometry chart. I've been on many bikes and own many bikes HT, ST, FS, even DJ bikes don't have very generous standover clearance. Titus XS and Small size as well as Klein HT don't have your generous clearance.

Plus the way it was explained how it went down, you need a lot more than 2" of clearance, uphill stalled and all, when you dismount you'd be landing toward the headtube which is taller, and the feet would be toward the chainstay, worst possible combo.


----------



## TracksFromHell (Jul 9, 2014)

Check out Chromag. But those are steel. I'm still looking for a good ht 29er in Ti with super low standover that can take a 2.5 rear tire and has short chain stays.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

wandering_1 said:


> Couldn't agree more. Ignore standover at your peril. When I worked at my lbs I made a point of not selling a bike to someone who said they intended to do serious riding unless they had a minimum of 2" of TT clearance. Not just to save their future offspring but because if they don't have that there is a very good chance the bike is simply too big for them in general. Also in the future if you are going uphill and have to bail at a low speed just lean to the side for a one foot dismount. Your boys will thank you.


Sounds like you put some short legged beginners on frames way too small for them.

As a short legged person that has had to choose between standover and proper tt/reach on pretty much every frame I have owned, I can assure you from experience that riding an frame that is too small in tt/reach is a MUCH bigger problem than having less than 2" standover.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

AndrwSwitch said:


> I was just thinking on my ride yesterday, "Don't neglect the importance of narrow enough bars." Wide bars can put your hand right into a tree. Narrower than shoulder width doesn't really buy any extra clearance, so we should really all cut our bars to shoulder width to optimize safety.


Bad analogy...handle bar width affects your handling and control of the bike.

Standover clearance is more synonymous to wearing a helmet. It's there just in case of unexpected situation.


----------



## SandSpur (Mar 19, 2013)

kapusta said:


> Sounds like you put some short legged beginners on frames way too small for them.
> 
> As a short legged person that has had to choose between standover and proper tt/reach on pretty much every frame I have owned, I can assure you from experience that riding an frame that is too small in tt/reach is a MUCH bigger problem than having less than 2" standover.


Im not surprised, I dont expect much from a LBS


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

slapheadmofo said:


> No worries - I knew it was.
> 
> Just a timely mention, as the wide bars have been forcing me come almost to a stop at a few spots on my go-to trails at a few spots, and there is definitely more missing bark now than there used to be on any number of trees. Only a matter of time before a finger gets involved, so the tube-cutter is coming out.


I've got a couple of those spots on my trails too. Not that there aren't ridiculous clearances every now and then, but now that there are a few places, not just one or two, I'll probably hold the line at my current width. Not sure if I'll get a choice or not anyway - could be my next bars ship at 665 or whatever anyway.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

mtb_beginner said:


> Bad analogy...handle bar width affects your handling and control of the bike.
> 
> Standover clearance is more synonymous to wearing a helmet. It's there just in case of unexpected situation.


I was being a jerk.

But I don't think it's that bad an analogy anyway.

You're proposing to ride a smaller frame or wheel size to get some standover clearance. Bikes that don't fit are painful to ride, handle badly, or both for the entire ride. Not just in the very occasional crash or sudden stop when I put a foot down and the trail surface is level enough that the frame geometry has a real effect on whether I can reach the ground without nutting myself.

Now that I've spent a little time with wider bars, I'm accustomed to having a more stable ride all the time. It's pretty occasional that I put my knuckles through some shrubbery, and I have yet to put my hands into a tree trunk at speed, though there are a couple spots on my local trails where I have to stop.

I have a scar on my elbow from a brake failure about fourteen years ago. It really frustrated me. I felt betrayed by my bike and by the shop that "tuned" it and didn't tighten the binder bolt enough. It sucks when equipment contributes to a painful crash. But you have to remember what you're doing here: you're riding a statically unstable vehicle on broken terrain. You're probably even choosing trails that are somewhat challenging for you to ride cleanly. Going off-road is hard on the bike too. I can go years without a failure on a road bike, and even then, they're usually wear things. My mountain bikes require constant attention, if usually for pretty minor stuff.

My favorite flippant answer to the question of "what to expect from my first XC race" is "Expect to win while experiencing no pain."

So what are your expectations here?


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

AndrwSwitch said:


> I was being a jerk.
> 
> But I don't think it's that bad an analogy anyway.
> 
> ...


Going with smaller frame or smaller wheels are not the only ways of getting that toptube clearance (e.g. Yelli Screamy). It all depends on which other aspects of the ride you are willing to compromise. If you think you are willing to give up standover clearance just because you don't feel like searching for what other options are available out there, it's your own call.

Having a wider handle bar is not a concern for me anymore. I simply learned how to precisely pass between trees in our local trails. It's simply about keeping a minimum speed.

Two weeks ago, I had a dangerous crash on a descent not because of lack of skills, but because of mechanical failure. The front shifter fell off and got caught in the front wheel, causing an instant wheel lock, throwing me over the bar. No, it's not easy to tell if/when the bolt screw was getting loose during the ride. The Shimano i-spec mounting design made it difficult. But it would have never happened if I was the one who put the bike together, because I would have figured to put threadlocker on the i-spec bolt screw.

Anyways, I will continue sharing important tips to my fellow beginners in order to help them make informed decisions.

If it looks to me like "the emperor is not wearing any clothes on", I will surely point that out even when the experts say otherwise.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

mtb_beginner said:


> Having a wider handle bar is not a concern for me anymore. I simply learned how to precisely pass between trees in our local trails. It's simply about keeping a minimum speed.
> 
> ....
> 
> If it looks to me like "the emperor is not wearing any clothes on", I will surely point that out even when the experts say otherwise.


I'm with ya on questioning the 'experts'. Been fed silly BS so many times in this sport from those that purport to know a lot, it's ridiculous.

Far as keeping a minimum of speed through really tight trees, it gets tricky when the distance between trees is equal to or less than the width of your bars. When I say tight, I'm talking TIGHT.


----------



## TracksFromHell (Jul 9, 2014)

slapheadmofo said:


> Far as keeping a minimum of speed through really tight trees, it gets tricky when the distance between trees is equal to or less than the width of your bars. When I say tight, I'm talking TIGHT.


I usually just do a small wheelie, just enough to wiggle the bar at an angle in that precise moment in time and space.

Or just slam on the brakes, lube the shoulders and slowly squeeze through


----------



## db440 (Jul 1, 2014)

mtb_beginner said:


> Two weeks ago, I had a dangerous crash on a descent not because of lack of skills, but because of mechanical failure. The front shifter fell off and got caught in the front wheel, causing an instant wheel lock, throwing me over the bar. No, it's not easy to tell if/when the bolt screw was getting loose during the ride. The Shimano i-spec mounting design made it difficult. But it would have never happened if I was the one who put the bike together, because I would have figured to put threadlocker on the i-spec bolt screw.
> 
> Anyways, I will continue sharing important tips to my fellow beginners in order to help them make informed decisions.





AndrwSwitch said:


> I have a scar on my elbow from a brake failure about fourteen years ago. It really frustrated me. I felt betrayed by my bike and by the shop that "tuned" it and didn't tighten the binder bolt enough. It sucks when equipment contributes to a painful crash. But you have to remember what you're doing here: you're riding a statically unstable vehicle on broken terrain. You're probably even choosing trails that are somewhat challenging for you to ride cleanly. Going off-road is hard on the bike too. I can go years without a failure on a road bike, and even then, they're usually wear things. My mountain bikes require constant attention, if usually for pretty minor stuff.


Ok, I am going to take these stories to heart and actually go through my bike more thoroughly. I don't want a scar or worse from something like this! Statically unstable vehicle on broken terrain, that is good...


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

I did something similar, but it was on an unexpected downhill switchback. I braked too late so I clipped out (right foot still clipped in)...went forward...nailed the top tube...and the back end of the bike got off the ground and swung around.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

My Kona Process 134 has mega clearance! I was trying to be clever the other day when out riding with kids, I manual'd up onto a stone block barrier type thing segmenting footpath from road. Half way along/across and I stalled and lost momentum. Thank goodness for the 134's awesome clearance, coz my handlebars were up around my ears almost. My nadz were still safe/unscathed :woohoo:

Sent from my Kin[G]_Pad ™


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

slapheadmofo said:


> Far as keeping a minimum of speed through really tight trees, it gets tricky when the distance between trees is equal to or less than the width of your bars. When I say tight, I'm talking TIGHT.


Yeah, this. The places I'm thinking about, I could literally put my end clamps against the trees on both sides at the same time.

I'm sure I'll see them ridden sooner or later. There's usually a way to do these things crooked. But it's not something I'm up to trying at the moment.


----------



## EOS_ (Dec 16, 2012)

Just my thought, maybe a bit late. Standing clearance is important with MTB. Not that important on road bike hwere you do not get off and on the bike so often and ride over obstackles. Standing clearance will not necessarly increase with smaller wheel size. 29er has BB in the same height as a 26er and seat tube will be the same length of the same size. standing clearance will be different only a bit with the top tube of the 29er being more steaper due to the longer fork and etc... Beside this topic, that is why 29er is more stable than 26er, its center of mass is lower. I also have this problem, my legs are shorter copared to my height. That is why I chose TREK 29 (HT). Their frames are the longest of all bikes I think and I can have a smaller size frame to have a adequate frame length for my size. With other brands, size L is maybe even shorter than TREK size M. If someone wants a 29er HT and has this problem shorter legs to torso, TREK is a good option.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

EOS_ said:


> ... Standing clearance will not necessarly increase with smaller wheel size. 29er has BB in the same height as a 26er and seat tube will be the same length of the same size. standing clearance will be different only a bit with the top tube of the 29er being more steaper due to the longer fork and etc....


It varies depending on bike brand/model. But generally, if a bike manufacturer carries both a big wheel and a small wheel version of a particular bike, the small wheel model has lower standover. Take the Scott Scale 900 & 700 series bikes for example.

The steeper toptube on a 29er becomes an issue when you dismount on a downhill, but less of an issue when dismounting on a climb.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Yeah, this. The places I'm thinking about, I could literally put my end clamps against the trees on both sides at the same time.
> 
> I'm sure I'll see them ridden sooner or later. There's usually a way to do these things crooked. But it's not something I'm up to trying at the moment.


There's a couple of those along trails that I ride occasionally. One of my successful attempts involved a weird wobble, where I was tilting the bike and turning the bar to get one end through first and then the other.


----------

