Newbie bike sizing question

Hi all,

Good day. I would appreciate if you can give me some comment/feedback on the
sizing question I have for a new mountain bike. I am looking at a 2004
Kona Kikapu Deluxe and they come in 16" & 18" sizes (NO 17"). Top tube
lenght are 22.1" & 23.1" (horizontal C-C), and stand over heights are
29.7" & 30.8" respectively. Other dimension seems to be the same,
except head tube is 0.6" longer on the 18" bike.

My height is 5'8" with inseam of 31" (170 lbs)and based on my
findings, a 17" size will be "best" fit. However, looking at the above
2 choices, which one would better fit me?

I do plan to do some off-road cross country (20%) & technical riding
(30%), and also some on-road touring(50%).

Also, is it true & proven that a slightly smaller frame size is more
suitable (better control, maneuverability) than a larger one?

Thanks in advance.

"Colin Song" wrote in message
...
Hi all,

Good day. I would appreciate if you can give me some comment/feedback on
the
sizing question I have for a new mountain bike. I am looking at a 2004
Kona Kikapu Deluxe and they come in 16" & 18" sizes (NO 17"). Top tube
lenght are 22.1" & 23.1" (horizontal C-C), and stand over heights are
29.7" & 30.8" respectively. Other dimension seems to be the same,
except head tube is 0.6" longer on the 18" bike.

My height is 5'8" with inseam of 31" (170 lbs)and based on my
findings, a 17" size will be "best" fit. However, looking at the above
2 choices, which one would better fit me?

I do plan to do some off-road cross country (20%) & technical riding
(30%), and also some on-road touring(50%).

Also, is it true & proven that a slightly smaller frame size is more
suitable (better control, maneuverability) than a larger one?

Go see your nearest Kona dealer.

Colin Song said...

Hi all,

Good day. I would appreciate if you can give me some comment/feedback on the
sizing question I have for a new mountain bike. I am looking at a 2004
Kona Kikapu Deluxe and they come in 16" & 18" sizes (NO 17"). Top tube
lenght are 22.1" & 23.1" (horizontal C-C), and stand over heights are
29.7" & 30.8" respectively. Other dimension seems to be the same,
except head tube is 0.6" longer on the 18" bike.

My height is 5'8" with inseam of 31" (170 lbs)and based on my
findings, a 17" size will be "best" fit. However, looking at the above
2 choices, which one would better fit me?

I do plan to do some off-road cross country (20%) & technical riding
(30%), and also some on-road touring(50%).

Also, is it true & proven that a slightly smaller frame size is more
suitable (better control, maneuverability) than a larger one?

Thanks in advance.

For the type of riding you will be doing, I would go with the larger
frame. I think you will find that the smaller frame feels quite small
and you will enjoy the relaxed position of the larger frame more. The
smaller frame would be better for jumps and other technical situations,
but it doesn't sound like you will be doing much of that.

"Colin Song" wrote in message ...
Hi all,

Good day. I would appreciate if you can give me some comment/feedback on the
sizing question I have for a new mountain bike. I am looking at a 2004
Kona Kikapu Deluxe and they come in 16" & 18" sizes (NO 17"). Top tube
lenght are 22.1" & 23.1" (horizontal C-C), and stand over heights are
29.7" & 30.8" respectively. Other dimension seems to be the same,
except head tube is 0.6" longer on the 18" bike.

My height is 5'8" with inseam of 31"

I would expect the 16" to be a good fit, although you might need a longer seat post
than comes on the bike. You can try it out and see.

David

"Colin Song" wrote in message
...
Hi all,

Good day. I would appreciate if you can give me some comment/feedback on
the
sizing question I have for a new mountain bike. I am looking at a 2004
Kona Kikapu Deluxe and they come in 16" & 18" sizes (NO 17"). Top tube
lenght are 22.1" & 23.1" (horizontal C-C), and stand over heights are
29.7" & 30.8" respectively. Other dimension seems to be the same,
except head tube is 0.6" longer on the 18" bike.
snip

I'm certainly no expert on this but either size would probably be fine but
since you're only going to be doing a little bit of technical stuff versus
70% of road and XC style riding I'd have a closer look at the 18" frame.
The 16" will feel more compact and manoeuvrable versus the more open and
laid out 18". Some of the benefits of a larger frame will outweigh the
benefits of a smaller frame given your use. If you think that you'll be
doing more and more technical stuff it would pay to go to the 16".
--
Westie
(Replace 'invalid' with 'yahoo' when replying.)

"Westie" wrote in message ...
"Colin Song" wrote in message
...
Hi all,

Good day. I would appreciate if you can give me some comment/feedback on
the
sizing question I have for a new mountain bike. I am looking at a 2004
Kona Kikapu Deluxe and they come in 16" & 18" sizes (NO 17"). Top tube
lenght are 22.1" & 23.1" (horizontal C-C), and stand over heights are
29.7" & 30.8" respectively. Other dimension seems to be the same,
except head tube is 0.6" longer on the 18" bike.
snip

I'm certainly no expert on this but either size would probably be fine but
since you're only going to be doing a little bit of technical stuff versus
70% of road and XC style riding I'd have a closer look at the 18" frame.
The 16" will feel more compact and manoeuvrable versus the more open and
laid out 18". Some of the benefits of a larger frame will outweigh the
benefits of a smaller frame given your use.

Unless it doesn't fit well. A 23.1" TT sounds kind of long for a 5'8" rider, and with
a 31" inseam, he doesn't have a long torso. I could be wrong. My dimensions
are different than his, but it doesn't sound like a fit to me.

David

Thanks for the feedback. Both bikes fit, with the adjustment of stem size
and saddle position.

The 16" will need to be used with the seat post extended 1" beyond max (need
to change to a longer post) and saddle pushed 1cm rearwards, with a 85mm 5
degree rise stem.

The 18" will have the seat post withing the max range, saddle in "normal"
position, and 75mm 5 degree rise stem.

Question is whether :-

a) a shorter wheelbase is better (by 1")
b) shorter stem is better (by 10mm)
c) smaller frame is better (by 1" horizontal TT)

I have also seen many pictures of XC racers in action, and seems that their
bikes are a little smaller than the ideal size. E.g. the photo on
www.specialized.com landing page.




Unless it doesn't fit well. A 23.1" TT sounds kind of long for a 5'8"
rider, and with
a 31" inseam, he doesn't have a long torso. I could be wrong. My
dimensions
are different than his, but it doesn't sound like a fit to me.

David

Colin Song spray painted on a boxcar:
Thanks for the feedback. Both bikes fit, with the adjustment of stem
size and saddle position.

The 16" will need to be used with the seat post extended 1" beyond
max (need to change to a longer post) and saddle pushed 1cm
rearwards, with a 85mm 5 degree rise stem.

The 18" will have the seat post withing the max range, saddle in
"normal" position, and 75mm 5 degree rise stem.

Question is whether :-

a) a shorter wheelbase is better (by 1")
b) shorter stem is better (by 10mm)
c) smaller frame is better (by 1" horizontal TT)

I have also seen many pictures of XC racers in action, and seems that
their bikes are a little smaller than the ideal size. E.g. the photo
on www.specialized.com landing page.


which one FEELS better?

ps

Penny says:

which one FEELS better?

Pre-zactly! Once that is established, you can worry about things like colour
and gruppo.
Stop playing with numbers and ride the two suckers.

Steve

You are right, but both feels ok for me, I think I am one of the "one the
fence" case.....wish they had a 17"......

"Stephen Baker" wrote in message
...
Penny says:

which one FEELS better?

Pre-zactly! Once that is established, you can worry about things like
colour
and gruppo.
Stop playing with numbers and ride the two suckers.

Steve