Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Buying an MTB online - Size

  • 21-05-2009 7:55pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 589 ✭✭✭


    Hi,

    I'm planning on buying an MTB online, - I'm planning on getting a Scott Aspect 45 (2008 model).
    I'm wondering about what size to get, I'm 5" 6, with a 30 inch inside leg measurement.

    The bike comes in 2 sizes that would possibly suit me.

    Small (15.4 inches) and Medium (17.3 inches).

    Something is telling me to go for the smaller size though, - typically in the past I have prefered a smaller bike size. I tried a 16" MTB in Halfords and it felt slightly too big even.

    I've also heard that US manufacturers (eg. Scott) often measure the height slightly differently, so you should add on an inch or so
    .
    Based on the manufacturers size chart ( http://scottusa.com/us_en/support/bike/size_chart ) , I should probably be getting a Medium.
    Should I just go with the manufacturers recommendation?

    I guess the question is, - is it common/uncommon for people to go for a smaller size than the manufacturers recommendation, - or am I very likely to find the bike too small?

    Cheers


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,267 ✭✭✭concussion


    If a 16" felt too big in the shop, I'd think it would feel much worse on the trails. See if you can find a shop stocking Scotts and check the sizes. Best to have a small frame (good for stiffness and strength) with a long seatpost rather than cycle with the saddle as low as it will go. I've no idea what my inside leg is but I'm 6'1" and take 34" trousers. I have a 17.5" Trek which fits great with a 400 mm seatpost.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,791 ✭✭✭Enduro


    I always err on the side of getting a smaller bike with MTBs, particularly if its going to be used more for technical riding rather than out and out racing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,920 ✭✭✭Vélo


    Small


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 589 ✭✭✭ravendude


    Small it is then.

    Have ordered this one (last years version) instead of the Aspect 45. Doesnt have disk brakes, but is lighter.
    http://www.slanecycles.co.uk/productdetail.aspx?id=868&subid=405&catid=66

    Hopefully I'm saving a bit of money getting last year's model.

    Not sure if I should have gone for a bike with disk brakes or not instead of the lighter frame.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,791 ✭✭✭Enduro


    If you're going to be using it off-road in Ireland then you should definitely be getting disk brakes. They make a huge differenece, much more so than a few grammes of weight here and there.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Morgan


    Should have gone for the disks - it'll cost you more in the long run to upgrade.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 589 ✭✭✭ravendude


    have taken your advice on board and changed my order to a different model with disc brakes


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 405 ✭✭davgtrek


    well done ravendude thats a nice bike for the money.


Advertisement