Mountainbike with 26" wheels for riders between 4'9" and 5'2"

[Muirenn]

It's pushed as a youth bike, but I've seen quite a few TE'ers over the years who would like to choose between XT or Deore level bike out of the box that fits. Total weight is under 22 pounds, including pedals, etc. Looks like a good choice. I've noticed quite a few threads elsewhere lamenting the near demise of 26" wheels for that height range. And I just saw, cranks are 152 mm. That is interesting. Wheels are light weight. Everything is made light and nimble and sized with short chainstays, top tube, etc.

https://bikerumor.com/2016/11/22/tra...mountain-bike/

[emily_in_nc]

Thanks for pointing that out, Sheila!

If I were in the market for a new MTB, I'd definitely check those out. I have no desire for bigger wheels than 26" -- just call me old-school (and petite!) I have a 26" wheeled MTB I bought from Catrin, and it fits me great. I am 5'1.5".

[Crankin]

Sigh.. I guess those of our height, Emily, are being shunted into the kids department. I don't need a mountain bike, but this is somewhat disturbing to me.

My new hybrid (which is very similar to a hard tail mountain bike) was left to die in the kids' section of the store. Lucky for me, but I can't picture a 10 year old riding it. Maybe a teenager who is shorter.
I find this to be discriminatory.

[Muirenn]

Sigh.. I guess those of our height, Emily, are being shunted into the kids department. I don't need a mountain bike, but this is somewhat disturbing to me.

My new hybrid (which is very similar to a hard tail mountain bike) was left to die in the kids' section of the store. Lucky for me, but I can't picture a 10 year old riding it. Maybe a teenager who is shorter.
I find this to be discriminatory.

I'm sorry, Crankin. I don't like the idea, either. But I didn't want to avoid sharing an excellent bike that could work for a lot of people.

People are getting bigger. Kids overeat and grow taller, sooner. That's why this has changed. That and fewer women than men ride bikes. My mother was about 5'6" and a half. She was born in the 1930's, and was always the second tallest girl in her class. There was another who was 5'10". They we're both considered freaks. My mother said the girl always slouched to attempt to look shorter. My mom refus d to do this. But she made a lot of comments over the years about smaller women. She was jealous. And that was fact. Not that she would have admitted it. She always felt big and ugly. (And so do I when I'm around smaller women, which is a lot of them).

[emily_in_nc]

Agreed, Crankin. It is too bad. Fortunately, at least in road bikes, there seems to be a good selection for we petite gals.

Interesting, Sheila, and I do believe it. My mother was 5'4" (she's shrunk some now), and when they did the measurements of me at age 2, I think, the doctors predicted me to end up 5'5". There's some formula they can run based on your size (or the size of a certain bone or bones) at that age that is well correlated with final adult height. I was so excited that I was going to be taller than Mom! LOL...but it did not happen. I got extremely ill, almost died, at age 4, and the doctor actually felt that that illness and long recovery stunted my growth. I did eventually end up 5'2.5" but have lost about an inch since then, as I've gotten older. I think I have the feet of my original predicted height, though. Most gals my height that I've known wear 5.5-6.5 in shoes, and I've been a size 7 for years, even a half-size larger in walking or running shoes or hiking boots.

As for feeling large and clunky, it's all relative. As little as I am, I felt that way when I traveled to Japan for work back in 2000. I weighed more then than I do now by about 15 lbs, and all the Japanese women I worked with were about as big around as a pencil and short also. I remember wandering into a department store and seeing the womens' clothes that looked like little girl size. Although I didn't buy anything, I would have taken one of the larger sizes there, where I've always worn one of the smallest sizes available in the US. It was really strange!

[Crankin]

Oh, I know this, Sheila, but even though both Trek and Specialized have a WSD mountain bike, they both have 27.5 wheels, even x smalls. That would feel awful to me.
Yes, Emily, some of this is cultural/genetic. As a kid, growing up, I was tiny, but by middle school, most of my friends were around my height, 5'-5' 2." It wasn't until I moved, but even more, went to college, where I wasn't surrounded by other short, Jewish girls, I began feeling short! My mom was five ft., and my dad five eight. I am now five feet even, I've lost an inch, ugh. Hoping the Prolia stops this. In my mom's family, my grandmother was 5' 3", but my grandfather was six ft tall and my aunt is 5' 6." When my grandmother died, she was shorter than me!
And about buying clothes in other countries. While most of the women in Italy and Spain were around my height, they do not have the same bone structure. I couldn't fit into any clothes and I felt huge! I bought a jacket, scarves, and thankfully, shoes. No one laughed at me when I asked to try on size 35.5 or 36. Even DH felt like a giant in Spain, and he is 5' 7."

[Muirenn]

I briefly owned a nice 2002 mountain bike with 26" wheels. Got it used, but it had a brand new high end Rock Shox fork and rear suspension. Four days later, I had a wreck on my road bike and sustained a serious concussion. Lost all interest in mountainbiking and sold it. (Bought the CAADX with the funds). I think that bike handled better than bikes with larger wheels. The wheels seemed large to me, and I have a long inseam. Of course, I was used to lightweight road wheels, and that was part of it. But it was a great bike. (Gary Fisher Sugar II with brand new shocks. Dual suspension. Team Edition. Should have kept it).

Everyone keeps saying that the 27.5" replaces 26ers, but I can't help thinking a lot of people have body types that suit 26" wheels better than the newer styles. Even guys with long torsos and short legs may be more in proportion to a smaller size. Seems like a fad to get rid of them. I suppose for a 6'6" man, 26" wheels are too small. But not for most people. I've spent a lot of time on mountainbiker forums reading about the bikes different people buy. I like the clyde/tall riders forum. A lot of them have issues with fit, too. Surlys with 29+ wheels work well for a 320 pound clyde. Not so much for a 100 pound rider who is 5' tall. I'm personally glad to see them make a serious bike with 26" wheels. But yeah, couldn't they say it's designed for riders between such and such a height? I guess they want people to buy them for their kids. I can't imagine buying a bike that nice for a kid who will outgrow it in a year. But there are a lot of serious young cyclists out there who need a good bike for racing on the weekends, I guess.

[north woods gal]

Sheila, I'm one of those retro folks (now called retro-grouches), because I hated to see 26ers die a slow death at the hands of the industry. The 27.5 label is misleading, after all, because a 27.5 is NOT halfway between a 26 and a 29er. It's actually only a bit larger than a 26. I do like the 27.5 for all the reasons I've always liked the 26. Makes for a nimble, quick to accelerate and light wheeled bike. Both of my Log Lady single speeds are 27.5 and that's a good thing, sine that's become the industry standard MTB size.