Bike for my wife.

[So]

No, not a weird reincarnation of Noel Edmonds' Swap Shop, I need to get a mountain bike for my wife.

When she last bought one, 26 inch wheels were the standard. Now, there seems to be 26. 27.5 and 29. She is 5ft 2in so I THINK she needs a 27.5 SMALL but would appreciate some guidance.

Many thanks.

Edited by So on Monday 15th January 07:18

[bagusbagus]

I think I need to get a mountain wife for my wife as well so we can have a threesome.

[The Rookie]

You certainly want a small if not an XS, I wouldn't get a 26" now as they are very rapidly being consigned to the very cheapest bikes.

Consider getting one with a setback seatpost as if the cockpit is too long its a cheap change to an inline to shorten it further.

Halfords and Decathlon or have a look at what is on offer at Pauls cycles online would be my starting points.

[So]

We tried one of these and it seemed to fit well (small).

[13aines]

The Rookie said:

Consider getting one with a setback seatpost as if the cockpit is too long its a cheap change to an inline to shorten it further.

Is this not similar to sliding the saddle forward on the rails? If so i'm sure that's deemed a bad way to shorten the reach.

If it were a road bike, you would be better off shortening the stem, but it's likely to be very short on a good mountain bike already.

[The Rookie]

How can it be the same as sliding the saddle forward when you could have the saddle forward on a mount that is 20mm further forward? You usually only have about 10mm of slide (from the midpoint).

It changes the riding very little, over tech terrain you aren't sitting on the saddle anyway, it won't shorten frame reach though but that tends to be less critical

[Paraicj]

5'2" means a Small should usually be just fine, with 27.5 wheels you should be laughing. The new Whyte hardtails (604 or 802) both have compact geometry versions designed for shorter riders and have a great "Real MTB" feel and design to them.

[13aines]

The Rookie said:

How can it be the same as sliding the saddle forward when you could have the saddle forward on a mount that is 20mm further forward? You usually only have about 10mm of slide (from the midpoint).

It changes the riding very little, over tech terrain you aren't sitting on the saddle anyway, it won't shorten frame reach though but that tends to be less critical

I don’t mean in a practical sense, but a bike fit sense. Let me try to explain better...

Saddle setback (using a setback or straight post and saddle rail adjustment) should be set such that the knee is directly above the pedal axle with the crank at 3 o clock, as far as I know. The setback shouldn’t be used to shorten or lengthen reach to the bars... Therefore, once set such that the knee is above the axle as described previously it should be left.

To shorten the reach a shorter stem should be used if possible. Reach can also be improved slightly with handlebars with shorter reach.

I have had to do some reading recently on this because my girlfriend doesn’t seem to fit will reach wise on off the shelf road bikes.

Edited by 13aines on Thursday 18th January 11:00

[So]

Well, the choice is bewildering.

Are we thinking 27.5 is a better shout than 29?

I am tempted to pick one Trek and one Specialized and having them delivered to Evans locally. She's tried the GT Avalanche. Is there really going to be merit in trying loads of models?

[Usget]

What's she going to be doing with it? Sending it down some cliff face or other, or pottering to town and along some towpaths?

If the latter - probably no merit to testing a load of them. Pick the one you both like the look of the most. You're always more likely to get out and ride on a bike you like the look of.

[So]

Usget said:

What's she going to be doing with it? Sending it down some cliff face or other, or pottering to town and along some towpaths?

If the latter - probably no merit to testing a load of them. Pick the one you both like the look of the most. You're always more likely to get out and ride on a bike you like the look of.

Mostly local country trails.

[yellowjack]

So said:

Well, the choice is bewildering.

Are we thinking 27.5 is a better shout than 29?

I am tempted to pick one Trek and one Specialized and having them delivered to Evans locally. She's tried the GT Avalanche. Is there really going to be merit in trying loads of models?

I don't think Trek will do a 29" wheel on a frame small enough for a 5'2" person. They do an "intelligent wheelsize" thing on at least some of their models. Basically the smaller frames have 27.5" wheels, whereas the larger frame sizes in the same model have 29" wheels. It's done to keep everything in proportion.

At 5'6" I haven't found a 29"er I was happy to buy. Some would technically fit me, but the (small) frame and (large) wheels don't look right together. My advice, especially for someone who's short, is to stick to 27.5" wheels as a rule. Heck, at 5'2" I'd be looking for a bike with 26" wheels, but the ones that are available these days all seem to be at the very lowest end of the spectrum, or highly specialised bikes for specific purposes.

My wife has just started talking about getting a new bike, but at 5'0" tall, she's struggling to find anything suitable and in budget. But then she doesn't want a MTB, more of a step-through commute/shopper type bike. We'll get there, but anything that does fit is cheap and very heavy, or so we've found up to now. No rush though.

[g7jhp]

If it's local trails (rather than rougher terrain) I'd suggest thinking about a hybrid with knobbly tyres rather than a MTB with front suspension fork.

Weight of bike is usually the biggest concern.

Might be worth looking at something like this Specialized Vita (I have on connection, but spotted when looking for a bike for my OH, but she needs a Medium sized bike).