Just one of several options just now.
I love my Nicolai as its great to throw about, but its not very friendly for going upwards! Hoping the Orange might be a better option, but not sure which size- 16 might be better as I like the chuckability of the Nicolai!
Nicolai is oneof these:
I'm 5'10 and ride a 16" five, feels just about right nice and chuckable and climbs reasonably well although I'm more built for going downhill.
5'10 is a really inbetween height ime. lots of brands seem to be right on the m/l border at that height so a test ride is a must as so much will depend on the many variables - leg length, arm reach etc.
odd really as most of the guys in our group are 5'10 (me included) so it's obviously a very average height and you'd have thought that the bike brands would have made the sizing spread for m frames with 5'10 being around the middle not the edge (if that makes sense).
you'd have thought that the bike brands would have made the sizing spread for m frames with 5'10 being around the middle not the edge
It's a really good point Trailmonkey and it does make sense. But think of it this way. At this height you get the choice of either having a bike that is either small and compact but still just about large enough or roomy and acommodating but not too large.
It's the best of both worlds really but it does making choosing harder.
I got a Large and I am 6 ft and its def not big on me!
get a demo from a reputable orange platinum dealer and that'll give you the ansa...
18" at same heigth but I like big FS bikes. Suspect you can use either but obvioulsy the 16 will be smaller /more chuckable
I'm 5'10" with short legs (!) and originally had a 16" for a lot of the reasons given above (smaller, more manouevreable, etc.) - this was a great fit and I did all sorts of biking on it. Unfortunately frame cracked after about a year (weld on top of top tube at junction with seat tube) despite having a well fitting and long (~420mm) seat post. My LBS and Orange thankfully looked after me with the warranty and replaced and rebuilt the frame free-of-charge. However, I was advised that I had too much seatpin showing and this was likely to have been the main contributor to the crack. So, I was advised to go for an 18" replacement. I went for the bigger frame and it's been a perfect fit - no loss of 'chuckability' and probably easier to get more grip out of the front end - don't miss the loss of standover really either.
Incidentally, I've got a 16" Alpine and by playing tunes with bar width and saddle adjustment the riding positions feel quite similar.
Cheers,
Simon.
I'm 5'9" and have an 18" after having spent one evening on a 16, then one evening on an 18, both at Glen Tress.
I couldn't tell the difference to be honest so I spent a fair bit of time talking to The Hub folk and went for 18. Been having a great time on it for the last year and a half. I am running a 70mm stem with it as a compromise.
I'm a smidge taller and have an 18". My mate has a 16" and it looks like a girls bike.
I'm 5'10". I had an 18", I swopped it for a 16". its much betterer but then I like small bikes.
I think the main difference is a top tube is an inch or so shorter.
5'8" and ride an 18" so I think it's a case of what you like rather than what's 'right'. The top tube cleareance is good so little guys can get on the bigger bikes and I like the longer wheelbase of the 18, but I've got one of the steeper angled '08 bikes which are shorter in wheelbase than the newer ones.
5' 10 here with an 18" used for light DH and trail riding.
Interestingly, I am 5'10" and have an 18", but I appear to have slightly short legs at about 30-31". Riding the bike it fits and feels fantastic, but I have almost no standover clearance. This is running a 2010 model with 2010 Revelations.
I do occasionally wonder whether a 16" would have been better, but its too late now, so would recommend trying both to make sure.
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
