[Closed] 16" or 17" Orange five?

How tall are you and whats your inside leg measurement?

If you had the saddle all the way back, it sounds like you could do with the next size up.

About 5 10" with a 30" inside leg.
Cheers

I would definitely say a 17", I am practically the same height and ride a 17".

30" inside leg

definately the 17". im 5'9 and mines 18", the 17" wasnt available then,but the 18" dosent feel too big but a 16" did

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?

It depends on your inside leg measurement RJ. The OP has short legs long torso, and would definitely fit a 17" better due to the longer TT. Also if you are used to riding a small bike it will feel strange.

I am 5"11' with a 31.5 inside leg and can ride a 16", but when I get on mine (17") I realise the 16" is actually way too small.

The right size doesn't just help on the climbs, it will feel more stable on the downs.

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.

More info my C456 is a 16", very similar TT length to the 17" five.

Randomjeremy going nuts the 16" felt perfect, hops, jumps, manuals, anything in the down direction all A1. Just riding along, getting to the fun stuff a little cramped.
Would wider bars make it feel better?
Sh#t still confused what to do.
Skywalker if the 17" just as nimble? The wheelbase is a little longer.
Cheers all
Dm

I used to ride a BMX a bit as well and still like a smaller feeling bike.
Dm
Gotta hit the buy button by friday.
Maxle
V2
Neon Green
F+r woolly stuff

Its up to you but pretty much everyone your size rides a 17". There is no way I would buy a 16" if were me (hence why I bought a 17") I would rather a longer TT and shorter stem, than a long stem and short TT.

Skywalker that is what i am thiking, seat in the middle of the rail and a 50mm stem and I have the dimensions of a 16" again.
I am giving my self a headache over this.

Exactly.

If you phoned Orange I am 100% sure they would say a 17".

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

I am a fraction taller than you (5ft 10.5) and inside leg 30.5. I have an 18 which is spot on. The 17 wasn't available when I got mine, but it would fit me too as it is the same effective top tube etc, just a little lower standover

How tall are you Mah05?

I have phoned Orange. They said a 16 or 17, no solid answer.
They assured me a 17 would be just as nimble.
Dm

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 have phoned Orange. They said a 16 or 17, no solid answer.
They assured me a 17 would be just as nimble.
Dm

They said that to me, I'm 5'8"! I got a 16", if I was your height I'd get a 17"

I can not believe how much of a drama I am making out of 20mm here and there.Thanks for all the input so far. Keep it coming.
Dm

I wouldn't worry about it too much, either way you'll be getting a sweet bike. BTW I run a 50mm stem and 740mm bars on my 16, it feels great

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

Same height and my 17 is bang on.

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.

Deanfbm - your bike is to small for you no matter how you look at it.

The correct answer is buy a 17", and the fun thing to do would be the correct size. Buying a bike the wrong size doesn't make it more fun, it makes you look silly for spending nearly 3k on a bike thats too small.

skywalker - define "wrong" size for me.

I am the same height as you and make my brothers 16" Five look like a kids bike. I assure you a 16" Five for someone who is 5'11" is too small.

Their old size chart;

http://www.cyclestore.co.uk/contentpages.asp?pageid=68

That was before the 17" Five was made, I am 99% sure you would now be fitted on a 17" if you went to a shop.

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.

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.

They are, but they are building the frames and they know who they will fit. A 16" Five is intended for people from 5'4" to 5'8", you at 5'11" are way out of that and fit smack bang in the middle of the 17"/18" sizing.

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.

I have worked in bike shops and as a cycle mechanic through my whole working life. That statement is totally wrong. If between sizes you would sell the customer the smaller bike rather than the large. You can't make a big bike smaller, but you can make a small bike bigger (longer stem, layback post etc)

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.

Riding style doesn't come into it. If it's an XC bike it will have a longer ETT, if its a DH bike it will have a shorter ETT. You don't need to take that into consideration, the manufacturer has already done that for you.

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.

Again, what he is used to doesn't make any difference. He could have been sold the wrong size bike before and he will now think its "right" as thats what he is used to, when actually its not.

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.

I disagree, and you would be guilty of doing the above.

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.

I don't know where you get this idea. Bikes are now being made with longer ETT's than before so people can run shorter stems and wider bars.

Look on any manufacturers size charts, I guarantee you will not find one that puts you on a 16" bike.

OP- get a Santa Cruz Heckler.

Did try a heckler, felt higher than the five and not as nimble.
Cheers
Dm

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.

Not a Five I know, but at 6' I've ridden both Large/19.5" Trance X (610mm ETT) and amd Medium/17.5" (585mm ETT) - in photos the Large looks better but I know which one was more fun for chucking about...

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

Santa Cruz's sizing chart suggests that someone of 5'10" (like the OP) is a borderline fit on the Medium Butcher, which has an ETT of 571mm - shorter than the 16" Five's 582mm btw... 😉

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

Santa Cruz's sizing chart suggests that someone of 5'10" (like the OP) is a borderline fit on the Medium Butcher, which has an ETT of 571mm - shorter than the 16" Five's 582mm btw...

I know, my brother owned one before he bought his 16" Five. It was too small for him and he is only 5'8". Santa Cruz bikes are know to come up small which is why at 5'10" you would go for a large.

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

Calm down RJ, just because you bought the wrong size too 😆

😆 🙄

17" with a 40-50mm stem and wide pars , Reverb and you will be happy as a pig in poo

Thanks all.
Ordering in the morning. Played around on my 456.
Going to go for the 16"
Cheers
G

Pretty pointless thread then.

80% say buy a 17"

20% say buy a 16"

Its your money!

Hey skywalker.
Im looking at five's at the mo and at only 5'7.5 im looking at either a 16" or 17", I would say the 16" is too small for the OP, his torso too long!

Was kinda hoping some certain brothers might be out for a ride today so I could check the 16 and 17 out for size! 😀

16 if your 5' 7"

I know, my brother owned one before he bought his 16" Five. It was too small for him and he is only 5'8". Santa Cruz bikes are know to come up small which is why at 5'10" you would go for a large.

I was in the same situation when I was buying my Butcher, I'm 5'11 with 32 inside leg, I was just slightly to big for a Medium so went for a large as SC bike comes up quite small anyway in the TT, I run my Large with a 50mm stem and it's perfec. I did try a Medium but thought i might struggle on it on full days out.

Think the OP should got for 17" and I was always told you shouldn't rely on layback posts to extend the reach as you positioning your body back further on the bike.