MTB sizes

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

stalagmike

Enormous member
Location
Milton Keynes
I'm 6ft 3 with a 34 inch inside leg. Would a 19in frame 90s MTB fit me?

I know a test ride would be best way to find out but just in theory...?
 

Spiderweb

Not So Special One
Location
North Yorkshire
I think it’ll be too small.
 

Drago

Legendary Member
You may just be able to ride it comfortably, but it'll be the absolute lower limit. I'm fractional,y taller than you and manage on my 19" Alpinestars, bu 2mm smaller and it wouldn't work. It's right on the edge.
 

rogerzilla

Legendary Member
MTB sizes are often a tradeoff between needing an absurdly short stem or needing an absurdly long seatpost. There's a trend to very steeply-sloping and very long top tubes, which can make it hard to get a good fit unless you have your saddle fairly low for your height. In contrast, I've never had a problem finding a road bike that fits.
 
OP
OP
stalagmike

stalagmike

Enormous member
Location
Milton Keynes
You may just be able to ride it comfortably, but it'll be the absolute lower limit. I'm fractional,y taller than you and manage on my 19" Alpinestars, bu 2mm smaller and it wouldn't work. It's right on the edge.
What would be the minimum size would you say, for gentlemen of our kind of proportions?
 

KneesUp

Guru
I'm 6ft 3 with a 34 inch inside leg. Would a 19in frame 90s MTB fit me?

I know a test ride would be best way to find out but just in theory...?
I ride a 1989 MTB with 175mm cranks. It's 20" and I have the (original) seat post pretty much on it's limit, and I'm only 5'11" (32" inside leg).
 

SkipdiverJohn

Deplorable Brexiteer
Location
London
I would pay more attention to the Top Tube length than anything, as a short one makes for a cramped ride and a really long one may be too stretchy. Someone 6 ft 3in with a 34" leg I reckon would want an old-school 23" field gate style MTB for general utility/ leisure riding, or maybe a 21" of they want a bit more standover clearance to protect one's delicate bits if riding on rough stuff!
Here's two Raleighs, both 1991 bikes with 501 frames. the black one is 23" the multicolour one is 21", both have the same reach, frame geometry, same head tube height. At just under 6ft with a 33 1/2" leg, I can ride both fine, but the black one has to be treated with more respect:-
RALEIGH UNKNOWN MTB (3).jpg
HIGHLANDER 21 CHURCHYARD TREE.jpg
 
OP
OP
stalagmike

stalagmike

Enormous member
Location
Milton Keynes
I would pay more attention to the Top Tube length than anything, as a short one makes for a cramped ride and a really long one may be too stretchy. Someone 6 ft 3in with a 34" leg I reckon would want an old-school 23" field gate style MTB for general utility/ leisure riding, or maybe a 21" of they want a bit more standover clearance to protect one's delicate bits if riding on rough stuff!
Here's two Raleighs, both 1991 bikes with 501 frames. the black one is 23" the multicolour one is 21", both have the same reach, frame geometry, same head tube height. At just under 6ft with a 33 1/2" leg, I can ride both fine, but the black one has to be treated with more respect:-
View attachment 456607 View attachment 456608
Thanks for that. Has cleared up a lot of the mystery for me. I guess with later bikes with sloping top tubes I would need to be going for the biggest possible.
 
Top Bottom