What are the advantages/disadvantages of a 22.5" mountain bike as opposed to a 19"?

Im 6'2", inexpiriencd rider. I was given a Trek 4300 22.5" mountain
bike. Just looking for some light trail riding, nothing more. Is this
bike too big? Thanks.

wrote:
Im 6'2", inexpiriencd rider. I was given a Trek 4300 22.5" mountain
bike. Just looking for some light trail riding, nothing more. Is this
bike too big? Thanks.

Well, the price was right. Try it and see how you like it! (Adjust the
saddle height and possibly stem length/rise to fit you before you go.)

For "light trail riding, nothing more", a too-large bike won't kill
you...and MIGHT even be nice 'n stable.

Have fun... BS (no, I mean it)

wrote:
Im 6'2"... I was given a Trek 4300 22.5"...

My brother is 6'2" and he rides a 19.5" Trek 4500. I think he looks
huge on it, but he likes it. I'm 6'3" and I would definitely ride the
22.5".
Ride it and see if it works for you.

-Vee

Just make sure it's not a "nutcracker." The top tube on a mountain bike
needs to be two or three inches lower than on a road bike. For one thing,
you may have to maneuver at low speed by leaning the frame. This works best
if the frame is not too tall. There may also be times when you have to
"dab," (put your foot down) on a sloping hillside, or uneven trail. You
need to be able to do this even when the distance to the ground is more than
normal.

On 4 May 2005 15:29:17 -0700, wrote:

Im 6'2", inexpiriencd rider. I was given a Trek 4300 22.5" mountain
bike. Just looking for some light trail riding, nothing more. Is this
bike too big?

It *may* be a trifle tall, depending on your inseam. I'm 6'3", and a
22.5" frame would be a bit taller than I'd want; they list the
stand-over height as 33 inches, but they don't say whether that's at
the front or the rear of the top tube. The 4300 frame normally has an
inclined top tube, but if that 33" stand-over is at the rear, then I'd
be a bit nervous about this one myself, and I'm 6'3" with a 34"
inseam.

The real test is to ride it and see how it works for you. If it's not
a good fit, I doubt that you'll have a problem getting good value for
it on a trade for something that's a better fit.

--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Per :
Im 6'2", inexpiriencd rider. I was given a Trek 4300 22.5" mountain
bike. Just looking for some light trail riding, nothing more. Is this
bike too big? Thanks.

The standover aspect depends on the frame shape and I'm too lazy to look up
Trek's 4300.

My (retired, looking for a good home) 22' Ellsworth Isis has a Y-shaped frame
that lets even somebody about 5'6" ride it as long as the saddle is all the way
down. Obviously the other measurements are far from optimal, but the person of
that size who rides this one likes it just fine...

I'm 6'5". My guess is that at 6'2", somebody would be in the area where body
proportions would make the diff between a technically-perfect and
not-so-perfect-but-ridable fit on a 22+" frame.

Personal preference means something too. Some people like smaller frames even
though they're large. I'm so decrepit that I like larger frames bc they're not
so demanding of my posture.
--
PeteCresswell

Werehatrack wrote:
On 4 May 2005 15:29:17 -0700, wrote:

Im 6'2", inexpiriencd rider. I was given a Trek 4300 22.5" mountain
bike. Just looking for some light trail riding, nothing more. Is
this
bike too big?

It *may* be a trifle tall, depending on your inseam. I'm 6'3", and a
22.5" frame would be a bit taller than I'd want; they list the
stand-over height as 33 inches, but they don't say whether that's at
the front or the rear of the top tube. The 4300 frame normally has
an
inclined top tube, but if that 33" stand-over is at the rear, then
I'd
be a bit nervous about this one myself, and I'm 6'3" with a 34"
inseam.

The real test is to ride it and see how it works for you. If it's
not
a good fit, I doubt that you'll have a problem getting good value for
it on a trade for something that's a better fit.

--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.


Thanks. I have not ridden other mountain bikes so I have nothing for
refernce. I did ride a lot of BMX bikes when I was much younger. I did
like the abilitly to 'man handle' the smaller frames around obstacles.
There will be none of that on this machine.

So when standing over my frame, how much clearance should there be
from the top bar to the boys?

On 4 May 2005 15:29:17 -0700, wrote:

Im 6'2", inexpiriencd rider. I was given a Trek 4300 22.5" mountain
bike. Just looking for some light trail riding, nothing more. Is this
bike too big? Thanks.

I don't know that bike, whether it's a compact or has a level top tube. It'll be
large on you in any case. You may want to shorten up on the stem to keep the
reach within reason.

Check standover clearance and if it is minimal (as I'd expect) or nonexistent
plan your rides and adventures accordingly. Standover clearance is usually
over-rated for an experienced rider who can easily enough keep himself out of
the situation of standing on both feet over an upright bike. You might need to
get some bike handling experience on good terrain before taking this anywhere
difficult if there isn't enough clearance.

Ron

wrote:

So when standing over my frame, how much clearance should there be
from the top bar to the boys?

Simplest answer: enough.

(Ideally on a mtb 2" or a bit more, but it's less essential for the type of
riding you described. PLUS it's actually pretty rare to "rack yourself" on
the top tube, as that's not a common fall position at all.)

Go ride the bike.

BS

wrote:
Im 6'2", inexpiriencd rider. I was given a Trek 4300 22.5" mountain
bike. Just looking for some light trail riding, nothing more. Is this
bike too big? Thanks.



I'm also 6'2" and have a 19.5" Trek 4300. It's on the small side for
me. I have to extend the seat post unusually high to get a good leg
movement. I'd be surprised if the 22.5 was not a better fit. Good luck.