Child's bike for a small woman?

I am pretty short (5' 1") and it's difficult finding bikes that fit. My number 1 bike is a surly LHT 42cm and it fits perfectly. I'm currently looking for a number 2 bike. I have a pretty specific idea of what I want and it doesn't seem to exist in my price range.

I live in the UK and my in laws live in the south of spain. We visit relatively regularly and the cycling has always looked fantastic. I want a bike to keep down here I can use. I'm looking for a bike to ride on the roads, but some of the back roads are pretty rough and there are some unpaved roads. It is also very hilly. I was thinking a cyclocross bike would be good, also something I could put a rack on for a bit of light touring. The problem is small cyclocross bikes don't seem to exist at an entry level. Also I don't want to spend too much as it'll only be used a few times a year when I'm over here.

I was feeling a bit disillusioned, when I came across this http://www.islabikes.co.uk/bike_pages/luath700lrg.html

It's a kid's bike, but a pretty serious one. Seems to be able to be used for cyclocross and touring, so should suit my purpose. The largest one may even be a bit big for me, but there are smaller ones. A bit more investigation found this http://www.dawescycles.com/p-232-espoir-3000-26.aspx

What do people think? Would these type of bikes work for smaller women, or are there obvious drawbacks? I like the sound of the small reach brake levers in particular.

I'm the same height and looked at these recently cos I needed a touring/cx bike with clearance for fairly wide tyres. It's heavy at 10.6kg and I wonder about the geometry (which isn't on the site), cos I don't think you can get a good seat tube angle in my size frame with 700c wheels. The short stem gives a hint of the compromise. But the price is right and I quite like the gearing as a versatile bike, so if it's not for really long rides it might be worth a shot. I'd certainly ask about the geometry first though.

If it's any consolation, I couldn't find anything at Dawes either. REI's little one was also heavy and not available here, the LHT a bit heavy for light touring and the little Ridley cx bikes were 700c with steep seat tubes and $3-3700. At which you go custom. I didn't find anything else in a 500-ish effective top tube. It's not easy.

I ride a 42cm LHT also, I'm 5'2". The Surly Pacer road bike frame in 42cm has the same fit as the 42cm LHT, 50cm eTT. I rode a Pacer for several years. It's a sport touring road bike and takes 25mm tires with fenders.

I think the 42cm Crosscheck is also the same fit, maybe a bit taller standover. The CC would be a great bike for light touring and rough roads. The CC takes tires up to 45mm.

Ideally i'd get another surly but I can't afford one (or justify the expense for a bike which is only going to be ridden occasionally). An off the peg cross check or lht over here are more than twice the price of the Isla bike and almost 3 times the price of the dawes.

I've e-mailed the isla people so should be able to get some more info. I'm not too bothered by a bit of weight as I'm used to my lht for my daily ride.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surlypacer

I think the 42cm Crosscheck is also the same fit, maybe a bit taller standover. The CC would be a great bike for light touring and rough roads. The CC takes tires up to 45mm.

---

Nope - as with most cyclocross bikes the bottom bracket is higher - so a bike with the same seat tube is size (which is usually used as the "bike size") is larger all over. Not only does the Crosscheck have a higher stand over - because the bottom bracket is higher in the first place, it has a longer top tube and different seat tube and head tube angles than the Pacer or LHT. Overall it is a bigger bike.

I'm smaller than the OP and wanted a cross bike just to mess around on a few years ago (before anyone really made a small one specifically aimed at women). I have a Redline Conquest 24. I think its probably a titch small for me, but for goofing around on dirt trails and the occasional cross race, its fun enough. The biggest problem with kids bikes is that they tend to be pretty heavy compared to similar adult bikes and the componentry is pretty much bottom of the line - then again they are a lot cheaper too.

New to this forum but a bit late to this thread (I've been perusing all the stuff about cyclocross frames as I'd like to find a better one for next season -- at 5'2" with short legs, not an easy task!)

Ms Pepperpot, I have an Islabike Luath 700, small size, and I love it. I bought it second-hand from a fellow cycling club member whose son had outgrown it. I use it for cyclocross and while it fits perfectly (though I put on a longer stem), the cable routing isn't ideal and it's quite heavy so I'm looking for something better. It was a great starter bike for my first cross season though. I would probably go with the larger size if I were using it primarily on the road instead of off-road.

Things I like about it:
-- short cranks
-- no toe overlap
-- very low standover, like 71cm (great for my 74cm inseam)
-- narrow bars
-- well-built
-- frame geometry feels great
-- regular 700c wheels

Things I will upgrade if I keep it for racing:
-- shifters and cassette (mine is an 8-speed with Sora shifters, I hate the thumb button -- I want 10-speed anyway)
-- better derailleurs

But for your purposes, it's probably fine! And the price is right. I've seen more than a few Islabikes ridden by women so you won't be alone in buying one.

I'm looking at a Surly Cross Check 42cm as a frame upgrade that I will build up myself with various bits and pieces from the Islabike and elsewhere. Standover for me is quite important as coming off the saddle to a grinding halt in a race must not result in physical damage :(

I am shorter than you - 5' tall - but I am mostly leg. I have a Trek 1.2 that I bought today in the smallest size available - a 47 cm. The bike I had before was a 43 cm, but not Womens Specific and built very, very differently. You would be surprised what you can find in different brands. In some I was measured for, a 47 cm would have been far too big and in others it fit great. I would suggest getting fit and seeing what they have. I, too, share your woes. I went all over looking for this size and finally found one, so I bought it!

Hi all.

Smaryka, have you posted in LFGSS recently? Maybe you've got a twin :)

I'm 4'11 and am currently on the hunt for the 'perfect' OTP road bike. I was convinced a smaller frame would be the way to go, but have currently ridden a Trek 1.2 47cm which was uncomfortable in comparison with a Cannondale 48/50. It appears I'm more leg than arms.

I'm convinced that finding a bike with 650c wheels would be the answer to my prayers but am willing to prove myself wrong. I'll be trying out both bikes on the road this weekend and I have particular segment that will test the carbon forks :D and have found a shop called Tokyobike that has bikes with 650c wheels so I'm off to visit tomorrow lunchtime (extended) to see what they have but they don't appear to do road bikes, but that's ok.

I knew it was difficult to find bikes for shrimps, just hadn't realised how difficult :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runningcyclist

Hi all.

Smaryka, have you posted in LFGSS recently? Maybe you've got a twin :)

I'm 4'11 and am currently on the hunt for the 'perfect' OTP road bike. I was convinced a smaller frame would be the way to go, but have currently ridden a Trek 1.2 47cm which was uncomfortable in comparison with a Cannondale 48/50. It appears I'm more leg than arms.

I knew it was difficult to find bikes for shrimps, just hadn't realised how difficult :eek:

---

Runningcyclist, what bike did you end up getting?

I discovered my perfect 650c bike when I took my old Cervelo P2SL TT frame (not available in Europe I don't think) and built it up as a road bike. Now it's my #1 racing bike, fast and furious with the added aero bonus. It's like climbing aboard a penny-farthing when I jump back on the "big" 700c Soloist again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muirenn

Really not sure what this means, but glad you like your bike;)

And I thought pennies were small!

---

Ha ha, a penny-farthing is one of these:
http://www.jonathanthejester.org.uk/pennyfarthing.jpg

Never actually ridden one but I imagine it feels gigantic underneath you, and hard to get the wheels going initially.

My 650c wheels are so quick to accelerate that when I jump back on my 700c bike it just takes a bit of getting used to again, I don't seem to have that quickness in turning the wheels round, especially going up steep hills. Would never go back to racing my 700c bike in crits again!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smaryka

My 650c wheels are so quick to accelerate that when I jump back on my 700c bike it just takes a bit of getting used to again, I don't seem to have that quickness in turning the wheels round, especially going up steep hills. Would never go back to racing my 700c bike in crits again!

---

This is more likely because the bike fits you than the size of its wheels.... I'm short too, but I've an odd body shape and my small 700c bike fits better. For me that one feels like it accelerates, climbs faster etc. (of course the way my 650 bike is built up these days its no wonder, its a bit of a pig compared to my race bike right now at 22.5 lbs)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eden

This is more likely because the bike fits you than the size of its wheels.... I'm short too, but I've an odd body shape and my small 700c bike fits better. For me that one feels like it accelerates, climbs faster etc. (of course the way my 650 bike is built up these days its no wonder, its a bit of a pig compared to my race bike right now at 22.5 lbs)

---

It's a bit of both I think -- the 650c wheels are lighter, so that's an advantage, and the smaller diameter means less energy to get them going or to speed them up (see this page for the explanation). But then you lose out with the higher rolling resistance on the small wheels, so it takes more effort to keep them going and you lose more energy on bumps and rough road.

It's interesting because both my frames are the same size (48cm) by the same manufacturer (Cervelo). I wrote a blog post about this a while back comparing the two here. Biggest differences are that the 650c bike has a lower front end (smaller diameter wheel and its short headtube as a TT bike), and the seattube angle is steeper. No toe overlap as I have on the 700c bike. Both bikes descend and corner really well, but the lower front end on the 650c bike makes it a bit more aggressive for racing.

I think Cervelo's done a great job making a 700c bike in small sizes though, given the inherent geometry problems with that. After all there is a market for those wheels on a small frame, so it's nice that a manufacturer has thought through the problems and tried to find the best solution rather than compromise on handling. They also make a 650c carbon model (the RS), though the headtube on that is quite long so more a comfort than a racing bike.

Having just done a (UK) market search to recommend a bike to a small woman (4'11"), I found that one or two of the Treks come in a 43cm w/ 650c wheels. The effective top tube is about 48.5cm - so lovely & short. It's not intuitive or very clear which bikes come in this small size - but if you go onto the Trek site & go through all the road bikes, you will see most come with 47cm as the smallest - but a couple come smaller.

We frequently have small women customers (as a 5'1" myself I know the frustrations) & there aren't a lot of off the peg 650c bikes available in the UK - sometimes you can find a 43cm Cannondale on ebay - but I dont' think they make one new anymore.

Having just done a (UK) market search to recommend a bike to a small woman (4'11"), I found that one or two of the Treks come in a 43cm w/ 650c wheels. The effective top tube is about 48.5cm - so lovely & short. It's not intuitive or very clear which bikes come in this small size - but if you go onto the Trek site & go through all the road bikes, you will see most come with 47cm as the smallest - but a couple come smaller.

We frequently have small women customers (as a 5'1" myself I know the frustrations) & there aren't a lot of off the peg 650c bikes available in the UK - sometimes you can find a 43cm Cannondale on ebay - but I dont' think they make one new anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smaryka

It's a bit of both I think -- the 650c wheels are lighter, so that's an advantage, and the smaller diameter means less energy to get them going or to speed them up (see this page for the explanation). But then you lose out with the higher rolling resistance on the small wheels, so it takes more effort to keep them going and you lose more energy on bumps and rough road.

It's interesting because both my frames are the same size (48cm) by the same manufacturer (Cervelo). I wrote a blog post about this a while back comparing the two here. Biggest differences are that the 650c bike has a lower front end (smaller diameter wheel and its short headtube as a TT bike), and the seattube angle is steeper. No toe overlap as I have on the 700c bike. Both bikes descend and corner really well, but the lower front end on the 650c bike makes it a bit more aggressive for racing.

I think Cervelo's done a great job making a 700c bike in small sizes though, given the inherent geometry problems with that. After all there is a market for those wheels on a small frame, so it's nice that a manufacturer has thought through the problems and tried to find the best solution rather than compromise on handling. They also make a 650c carbon model (the RS), though the headtube on that is quite long so more a comfort than a racing bike.

---

The 650 accelerates thing is pretty much a myth. On paper it may look good, but in the real world its just doesn't show results. For a while it was very much in vogue for triathletes to all use 650's. They found in the end it was better to go with the best fit they could get and 650's are again rare on tri-bikes unless you actually need them. (good for me though... easy to find cheap 650 wheels for my TT bike these days)

The best thing is to go with a bike that fits *you* the best. If 650's are the way to go, and for many of us shorties they may well be then go with them. If 700's work better, like they do for me, don't discount them just because you happen to be short. Now I *do* have a TT bike with 650's, but that is a whole different animal. I wouldn't be able to get aero on a bigger bike and the position is quite different too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eden

The best thing is to go with a bike that fits *you* the best. If 650's are the way to go, and for many of us shorties they may well be then go with them. If 700's work better, like they do for me, don't discount them just because you happen to be short. Now I *do* have a TT bike with 650's, but that is a whole different animal. I wouldn't be able to get aero on a bigger bike and the position is quite different too.

---

Yep agreed there but since the neutral service car won't always carry my 650c spare wheels I've had to compromise in some races and race the 700c bike.

I like 'em both, I feel they both work for me and fit me for various reasons... it's nice to have the option anyway. Thinking about whether I should try 650c for cross too but I wonder about the "rolling over rough ground" thing, whether I'll actually have to work harder with smaller wheels or not.

One of these days I'll get a custom-made TT bike with 24-inch wheels just so I can get myself even more aero in front (can you imagine the size of the chainrings I'd need though... :rolleyes:) Would be a cool experiment anyway.