I thought I didn't - that's why I was relying on the numbers. But maybe I do.jacksonpt said:
I'm going to scream - now the HEAD TUBE ANGLE?!
- Thread starter MtnBikerChk
- Start date
Yep, small RacerX.TreeSaw said:
When it comes to finding a MTB that fits, shouldn't you ride something that feels good to you?
Who cares about HT angles and effective TT legnths? Find a bike that feels right and go with it. If you like the motolite then get it... if the stem is too short/long for your comfort, change it.
Who cares about HT angles and effective TT legnths? Find a bike that feels right and go with it. If you like the motolite then get it... if the stem is too short/long for your comfort, change it.
SilentJ said:
MBC, have you tried a small? It's hard to tell from the picture because you're obviously in action, but it sort of looks like there's too much sag in the rear suspension and not enough in the front (it looks slacker than a 70* bike in action should be to me). If thats the case, it would definitely contribute to this bike not climbing quite as well as your Blur (the front lifting).
You said in this tread that your wheels kept sliding out from under you...was it your front tire washing out or was it just that the rocks and roots were slippery? You look very upright and over the rear wheel in the picture.
dumbass me - I should have tried the small while I was there but did not. The tires washed out because of the terrain - I'm sure of that.
re: the suspension - Matt from Titus set it up for me but honestly, I was playing with the lockout on the fork and the RP3 in the back. I could have screwed it up
I liked it squishy.
whatever happens at least we've got a good bike related thread going in the Lounge! 
Everyone of us on that ride were having our tires slide out from under us....and we were on sticky tires.MtnBikerChk said:
lol - I had the same thought.MMcG said:whatever happens at least we've got a good bike related thread going in the Lounge!
Doesn't Titus have a return policy if the bike doesn't fit properly?
N8 said:
you've been around MMcG too long, your over anaylizing I Are Baboon said:
all weekend was like that only it got worse !!!
jacksonpt said:
My wife is small, I'm talking 4' 11" and in good shape. We had a heck of time finding a bike for her, we looked at kids bikes, small men's bikes (some w/ 24" wheels), Women specific designs, etc. She rode them all, even if just in the parking lot or urban trails near the store. In the end the TREK Fuel EX (women's specific) felt the best to her. We got it, she loves it and not once did we talk about TT length ot HT angle... point is - how does the bike feel?
cadmus said:
it felt.....great.
BUT I'm afraid that when I get it out onto the kind of trails we ride around here for an epic (3 hours is epic to me) it will not feel the same
From the Titus website on FIT:splat said:
So true!!!!MMcG said:whatever happens at least we've got a good bike related thread going in the Lounge!
Those who are commenting that she looks "cramped" in that first picture seem to me trying too hard to give her a "roadie" fit on a MTB.
Her arms are almost fully extended. The stem is not overlong. This tells me it's the right size top tube/stem combo.
Her torso is not "too upright" -- she isn't riding into a headwind on a road century. She's riding off-road where ability to see what's ahead of you is way more important than a "flat back" aero efficiency position.
If her knees are "too close to the handlebar" then that means her saddle is too low, and maybe a bit too far forward in its fore/aft adjustment, and possibly a bit too nose-down.
Proper fit is about comfort while having fun, not about some slide-rule analysis of minute measurements. "Fit kit" stuff may seem impressive to a newbie or even a tech-head experienced rider, but time in the saddle will tell you what is optimal for yourself.
Grant Peterson of Rivendell Bikes, who designed the first classic Bridgestone MB series MTBs and has designed road racer and touring frames for many years, will tell you that the "stretched out/flat back" position that most try to achieve is a bunch of hooey unless you are a competitive roadie who often rides into headwinds. And even then, it has to be efficient for your particular anatomy and for some folks a flat back is NOT efficient.
Irish road racing legend Sean Kelly from the 70s and 80s rode his bikes in a much more crunched-up "too small" position than MtnBikrChick is using in that first photo.
Her arms are almost fully extended. The stem is not overlong. This tells me it's the right size top tube/stem combo.
Her torso is not "too upright" -- she isn't riding into a headwind on a road century. She's riding off-road where ability to see what's ahead of you is way more important than a "flat back" aero efficiency position.
If her knees are "too close to the handlebar" then that means her saddle is too low, and maybe a bit too far forward in its fore/aft adjustment, and possibly a bit too nose-down.
Proper fit is about comfort while having fun, not about some slide-rule analysis of minute measurements. "Fit kit" stuff may seem impressive to a newbie or even a tech-head experienced rider, but time in the saddle will tell you what is optimal for yourself.
Grant Peterson of Rivendell Bikes, who designed the first classic Bridgestone MB series MTBs and has designed road racer and touring frames for many years, will tell you that the "stretched out/flat back" position that most try to achieve is a bunch of hooey unless you are a competitive roadie who often rides into headwinds. And even then, it has to be efficient for your particular anatomy and for some folks a flat back is NOT efficient.
Irish road racing legend Sean Kelly from the 70s and 80s rode his bikes in a much more crunched-up "too small" position than MtnBikrChick is using in that first photo.
I thought about it some more. Given your inseam and height, I would think to put you on a Men's XS. But what I would do is get a setback seatpost. It will put your saddle about a cm back, and I think it will fix your cramped position...I Are Baboon said:
N8 said:
This is also a good excuse to ride more bikes.
MBC did your fork have lockout? did you have it locked out when riding the ladders and stuff?
Center of gravity is not affected as much as you think, IMO. To me it's affected in a SIGNIFICANTLY RELATIVE way much more by the position of the BB relative to the floor, and by the distribution of weight within the frame itself. When CoG becomes critical off-road, usually the rider is out of the saddle and able to lower/raise him/herself by flexing at the knees, elbows and waist!sanjuro said:
Besides, a flatter back changes less of the overall weight relative to the CoG. Think about it... the bulk of the CoG is down low where the bike itself and the rider's lower body (waist-down) is located.I'd go back to that first picture and note again that her arms are almost fully extended and she's not running, for example, a 120 or 130mm long stem. The "cramped" look is from the relation of her hips to the bottom bracket, not her hips to her hands. Look again, tell me if you agree or not!
I should qualify this by saying I've not seen her on the frame in person, so I'm going on a picture. I guess that's obvious, but I know I might change my view if I saw her on the bike in person.
One thing I am concerned about my own thinking is that my image of good fit applies mostly to men.particle bored said:Center of gravity is not affected as much as you think, IMO. To me it's affected in a SIGNIFICANTLY RELATIVE way much more by the position of the BB relative to the floor, and by the distribution of weight within the frame itself. When CoG becomes critical off-road, usually the rider is out of the saddle and able to lower/raise him/herself by flexing at the knees, elbows and waist!
One time I helped a 5 foot woman get a good fit, and we decided to put flat bars on her FS bike. I didn't care for the idea, but I realized by removing the riser, she was lower to the ground.
Also the 100mm fork, normally proportioned for someone over 5'5", put her at a high position. So lowering the bars in any way helped her balance.
Just because you need more people chiming in here... 
Do you still have your old bike around to measure? That could be helpful for comparison.
Riding around with your forked locked out but with your rear shock active will really mess up your geometry. Your fork needs to sag (just like your rear shock). If not, your bars will be too high, head angle too slack, and (regardless of effective top tube) you will need to shift your weight forward to compensate. Those pics of you on the ladder stunt thingy illustrate what I'm talking about.
Congrats on getting a new bike!
Do you still have your old bike around to measure? That could be helpful for comparison.
Riding around with your forked locked out but with your rear shock active will really mess up your geometry. Your fork needs to sag (just like your rear shock). If not, your bars will be too high, head angle too slack, and (regardless of effective top tube) you will need to shift your weight forward to compensate. Those pics of you on the ladder stunt thingy illustrate what I'm talking about.
Congrats on getting a new bike!
I don't know, I think that as a general proposition, balance on the bike would be helped a lot more by more time on the bike. Fit doesn't alter balance as much as it alters general comfort and efficiency. Balance comes with time on the bike. Although I should say that a lower BB can make a bike feel more stable, but as a general rule the rider can't change the BB height while riding, apart from loading the suspension.sanjuro said:
Yup. Although the locked-out fork tends to reveal the problems mainly when trying to climb steep stuff in the saddle. And, there are technique changes available to overcome those problems.OGRipper said:
I thought I read in a thread the other day that she felt like the bike wandered a little. (maybe I made that up) If I did read that, wouldn't she wander more with a set back post?sanjuro said:
Dependent on terrain, I might just suggest that bike with a little longer stem.
Maybe -- depends on her technique, style, and preference for how much weight she likes to carry on the front tire when cornering and descending. I still think we're looking at a hip-to-Bottom Bracket fit problem, if there is a problem at all.Alfred said:
if her CG had been any Higher , it would have been OTB !!!
So..more seatpost? Looks like she's got quite a bit out there already - any more and I think it would put too much weight over the back tire. It'd be a wheelie machine..particle bored said:I still think we're looking at a hip-to-Bottom Bracket fit problem, if there is a problem at all.
I sent my shop the pics and he said it looks like the saddle is too far forward. I actually looked at the saddle while I had the bike and it was in the most forward position on a straight seat tube.particle bored said:Maybe -- depends on her technique, style, and preference for how much weight she likes to carry on the front tire when cornering and descending. I still think we're looking at a hip-to-Bottom Bracket fit problem, if there is a problem at all.
technique? hmpf - what are my choices?
Style? Very little.
Preference? I want a stable rear suspension for riding through the big rocks.
First, not to be a smart-azz but I'm unaware of any "standard" on seatpost height apart from exceeding the MFR's maximum insert line on any individual post. So if her bike has a 350mm there's no reason why she can't use a 410mm. 60mm additional is a lot more seatpost!SilentJ said:
As to "wheelie machine," that is a function of rearward weight distribution. You're exaggerating a bit here. That's okay -- it's funny and all, but it's not answering the possible issues on fit.
Please, look closely at the picture. Look at her arms. Look at her knee bend. Do you see what I'm talking about? Her arms are almost fully extended, a mild bend of the sort that is good for off-road riding generally. Her stem is not overlong. So her top tube + stem length measurement is good, that's what I am saying.
Do you see something that makes you think otherwise? If so, what specifically do you see?
If you have difficulty climbing -- front wheel/tire wanders, wants to lift off the ground -- then the best fix is to climb with three changes to your technique.MtnBikerChk said:
1) Wrap your thumbs over the top of the handlebar, rather than around and under the bar. (This can be done while climbing out of saddle too. It changes the way your pressure levers into the rear wheel, and it's surprisingly effective.)
2) Get your forearms to a position where they are parallel to the trail surface.
3) Now pull back on the handlebar as if you were trying to pull it straight back into your belly. Not up -- back. Straight back.
As to style, some people like to corner aggressively with a lot of weight on their front tire, really making the front tire's side knobs bite into the ground. If you say you have little style, that's just being humble. Next time you ride, pay attention to how you like to corner. And if you hadn't been paying attention to it before, you will find a new way to change and maybe improve your cornering!
As to preference, when your fork is adusted to the recommended sag of 25-30% of travel, and the rebound and compression damping match your terrain and your desired amount of firmness in the suspension's feel, you have found what is "preferable"!
I keep coming back to the fact that you don't look cramped in the cockpit measurement, but rather in the saddle height, saddle fore/aft, and saddle tilt measurement department. I would say it's possible that you need a bigger frame with a longer seat tube and maybe longer top tube, but I would keep your overall effective top tube plus stem length measurement just about where it is in the picture at the start of this thread.
You can always get a Thompson offset seat post... I used one on my old Asylum 29er...
I wasn't trying to be a smart ass either...yeesh, man.particle bored said:
I don't think I'm exaggerating at all with the wheelie machine comment at all - and I wasn't trying to be funny.
I think she has a lot of weight over the rear wheel and pulling more seatpost out of that frame will just compound the effect. Her hip-to-hand distance just looks too short to me. I'm not trying to get her into the roadie position, but I think she's too upright for what their ride reports tell me they ride. To me, it means a slightly larger frame would fit better than the one she's riding in the picture.
N8 said:You can always get a Thompson offset seat post... I used one on my old Asylum 29er...
Dam I am agreeing with N8 Multiple times in 1 thread. but I use one of those , they are great!
splat said:
I never did see your impressions of the Titus Rx 29er Splat...
What did you think of it?
You:
N8 said:I never did see your impressions of the Titus Rx 29er Splat...
What did you think of it?
You:
I liked it A lot!!! Of all the Bikes I rode that was the one I liked the Best! the only one I would really consider as a replacement for my FSR XC, But I don't see that happening any time soon .
If the Ti Titus price tag is a bit steep I suggest a Speedgoat.com Asylum. It's the same bike but made from aluminium. You can get it frame only and build your own or choose from two built models from $2800-$5000. Info: http://www.speedgoat.com/splat said:
I am riding an Exogrid beauty now days which can be seen here.... :heart:
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2229979&postcount=15
I think that particle bored is on to something the seatpost height, saddle positioning and stem length.
particle bored - great comments in this thread. Are you relatively new to the site?
particle bored - great comments in this thread. Are you relatively new to the site?