Home › Forums › Bike Forum › 16" or 17" Orange five?
- This topic has 44 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 12 years ago by SBrock.
-
16" or 17" Orange five?
-
devilmanFree Member
Hi,
I rode a 16″ five for a good three hours around Cannock. The more I rode it the more i liked it, the harder pushed the more right it felt.
The only down side was it felt a little cramped on the climbs, I had the saddle all the way back.
Will a 17″ handle as well as the 16″? Does anyone in or near Milton Keynes have one that I could have a quick spin on?
I am ready to hit the buy button, but am going crazy on what size to go for.
I am going to use the bike as a play bike, no easy CX loops or the like. I have a C456 to rack the miles up.
Cheers
DMskywalkerFree MemberHow 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.
skywalkerFree MemberI would definitely say a 17″, I am practically the same height and ride a 17″.
creameggFree Memberdefinately the 17″. im 5’9 and mines 18″, the 17″ wasnt available then,but the 18″ dosent feel too big but a 16″ did
randomjeremyFree MemberI’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?
skywalkerFree MemberIt 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.
stevedeFree MemberI’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.
devilmanFree MemberMore 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
DmdevilmanFree MemberI 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 stuffskywalkerFree MemberIts 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.
devilmanFree MemberSkywalker 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.skywalkerFree MemberExactly.
If you phoned Orange I am 100% sure they would say a 17″.
mah05Free MemberIve 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
iaincFull MemberI 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
devilmanFree MemberI have phoned Orange. They said a 16 or 17, no solid answer.
They assured me a 17 would be just as nimble.
DmskywalkerFree MemberLike 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.
nmdbaseFree MemberI have phoned Orange. They said a 16 or 17, no solid answer.
They assured me a 17 would be just as nimble.
DmThey said that to me, I’m 5’8″! I got a 16″, if I was your height I’d get a 17″
devilmanFree MemberI 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.
DmrandomjeremyFree MemberI 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
reedspeedFree MemberI’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
deanfbmFree MemberThe “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.
skywalkerFree MemberDeanfbm – 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.
skywalkerFree MemberI 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.
deanfbmFree Memberskywalker – 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.
skywalkerFree Memberskywalker – 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.
devilmanFree MemberDid try a heckler, felt higher than the five and not as nimble.
Cheers
DmdeanfbmFree MemberSkywalker – 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.
idiotdogbrainFree MemberNot 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…
skywalkerFree MemberLike 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
idiotdogbrainFree MemberSanta 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… 😉
randomjeremyFree MemberNothing better than a random internet person frothing at the gash over the size of someone elses bike 🙄
skywalkerFree MemberSanta 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 😆
JeffusFree Member17″ with a 40-50mm stem and wide pars , Reverb and you will be happy as a pig in poo
The topic ‘16" or 17" Orange five?’ is closed to new replies.