that long you should be in the movies 😉

I’m 5’10 and the 18 felt massive, the 17 felt too big so I went for a 16 which seems to be perfect. Do you really care what it’s like in the climbs?

I’m 5’10 and ride a 17″ five, had an old 18″ with the straight top tube and i din’t like the lack of standover, this one feels just right for me.

Ive had a 16 and now got a 17. At your height would go 4 a 17. A 17 feels slightly more stable at speed i found than the 16. i had a 70 stem on my 16 and now got a 50 on the 17

How tall are you Mah05?

Like I said, I would rather have a 17″ with a shorter stem and the seat in the right place. 17″ will feel just as nimble and possible better than the 16″ because it will give you more room to move around. It will also feel more planted on the decents, whereas the 16″ will be a bit twitchy if you are slightly too big for it.

I’m 5’9″ & buyin a 17″ thing is everyone’s got an opinion & everyone rides to different levels so I thought I’d be in the middle !,17″ it is then

The “correct” answer is 17″.

The most “fun” thing to do would be 16″.

You say you’re buying it as a play bike, surely you should go with what’s more fun. The 16″ has an eff tt of 582mm, that’s plenty big enough for someone of your height. I’m a smidge taller than you at 5’11”, im more than happy climbing on a 565mm eff tt, 50mm stem, it certainly doesn’t hold me back, though i normally climb out of the saddle, so effective tt doesn’t really come into it.

How you would normally be riding a play bike is out of the saddle, mashing the pedals, hooning about, maybe you’re paying too much attention to eff tt? maybe you should be comparing them in terms of reach or front centre?

This brings me onto on a whole rant where MTBs should be sized according to handling, not by pedalling in the saddle, but i digress.

The 456 has a long eff TT for a given size, that’s why the 16″ five feels “cramped”. Your 456 feels a good size for climbing, but then going for a five that is a good climbing size is compromising on the prime function of the five, a play bike.

You also prefer smaller feeling bikes from your BMX background.

Go with your heart, you’ve tried a 16″, you said it was fun, a 17 or 18 is only going to be less fun.

skywalker – define “wrong” size for me.

skywalker – everyone know’s a manufacturers recommend size for a given height is a very rough guestimate as an aid to get a ball park figure. They’re a starting point as it were.

In a shop, you always size “safely”, it’s always safer to size a little larger than smaller. I too work in a bike shop.

You need to consider riding style, rider preferences, terrain amongst many other factors when sizing for a MTB (road is different, you’re only trying to attain maximum padalling efficiency position). With MTB sizing you’re trying your best to juggle compromises.

When you’re sizing well in a shop, you spend quite a while getting your best feel for what the customer actually wants and which compromises can and can’t be made.

From what i can make out from the OP, their priorities are out of the saddle handling, they felt the 16″ was nimble and chuckale enough, they have BMX roots, so favour a nimble bike. The size charts will be based on in the saddle efficiency and the fact the orange five is marketed as an all day, “do it all” trail bike, so will be sized to be comfy in the saddle. Plus if you size a trail bike larger, it will feel more confident in the rough and at high speed, giving that tangible “better performance” as it were, i say “better performance” because if you give someone the ability to feel like they can go faster, they will lap it up.

My gut instinct from doing this as a job is that a 16″ will suit the OPs desirables very well and the fact that a eff tt of 582 really isn’t short in the grand scheme of things.

Also I feel, this is only my opinion, MTB sizing is too used to the days of 100mm+ stems giving lots of room in the front, so is too hung up on replicating this feeling of “space”. People are used to this “space” so if they don’t have this space in something they try, it doesn’t feel immediately right so don’t give it a chance.

OP- get a Santa Cruz Heckler.

Skywalker – we’re going to have to agree to disagree then. As i’ve stated above, MTB frame sizing is not an exact science, you’re doing your best to balance compromises, you seem too keen to only want to take into account one factor.

You seem too hung up on basing sizing purely on height for in the saddle pedaling and not taking into account the variations in riding style and preferences.

Lets face it, if it was from another manufacturer, it was their 18″ or their medium size, if it still had an eff tt of 582mm, based on what you’re saying, that would be the correct size.

I guess my mind set if far more there is no “correct” size, just the bike that has made a balance of compromises to achieve what the customer likes.

Like I said, find me a size chart that puts someone who is 5’11” on a 16″ bike, its not going to happen. It doesn’t matter if its for AM or XC, 5’11” is was too big for a 16″ bike no matter what way you look at it.

Edit: I did it for you

http://www.specializedconceptstore.co.uk/SizeGuide.aspx?id=28

http://www.santacruzbicycles.com/butcher/#sizing.php

http://www.konabikeworld.com/tech/sizing_chart.htm

http://www.cyclestore.co.uk/contentPages.asp?pageID=61

Nothing better than a random internet person frothing at the gash over the size of someone elses bike 🙄

😆 🙄