|   Titus frame size questions | Puzman
Jan 14, 2002 6:36 AM | | Since I sent my Medium Loco (23.25" tt, 100mm stem) back to titus, i've been riding my wife's hardtail, which is a much smaller frame (21.5"tt, 120mm stem, 42" wheelbase). i've actually been really impressed with the handling- absolutely point and shoot, and very "flickable". I've been thinking about having Titus replace my front triangle with a size Small Loco (22.6" tt). I was looking at the size chart for the Hammerhead 100x, and at 5'9", I'm right on the border between a 22.5" and a 23.0" tt. I also ran through a size
calculator online (wrenchscience.com), and it recommended a size Small Loco with a short stem (80mm). Would appreciate any insight or words
of wisdom. |
| I'm almost the same size... | FredK
Jan 14, 2002 7:03 AM | | I am around 5'8.5, and I ride a Small Titus HCR with a 22.6" effective TT, with a 120mm stem. I have the bars roughly level with the saddle. The bike handles really well. I've never gone over the bars due to the cockpit being too short.
If you switch the front triangle out you are only shortening the chassis by around 17mm, so if you went with a 120mm stem, there would be very little to worry about. |
| re: Titus frame size questions | Hank
Jan 14, 2002 9:45 AM | | maybe this is the roadie in me showing through, but it seems to me that a lot of builders build frames with "ideal" stem lengths in mind. For example, an old school builder in the early 90s might have designed the frame thinking it would work best with a 135 stem. Today, Fisher designs his bikes around, what, a 80 stem? Well, what does Titus design their bike around? Or am I full of it? I'd maybe contact Titus on this one. I've got an old school setup--I'm 5' 11" and feel comfy on my 18.5 Mojo with a 22.7 tt and 135 stem. This is great except for those really steep down, where it does begin to feel a bit endo happy/sketchy. I see that the current 18.5 Mojo comes with a 23 tt and so I'd set that up with a 120 stem and probably be pretty happy. The trend does seem toward longer top tubes, shorter stems, and longer travel forks up front. My uneducated guess? Maybe try a Small with a 110 stem? Any way to put this to test with a test ride? And if you can't find a Titus, maybe you can find a SC Superlight, which has almost the same fit/dimensions? And of course, it really does depend on the kind of riding you do--seems like the more technical stuff favors smaller bikes, but on very steep downs this can come back to haunt you. Hope this rambling helps. |
| I have ridden both | TomB
Jan 14, 2002 10:23 AM | | I am 5'9" to 5'10". I opted for the medium though could ride the small. Noticed difference in handling on singletrack, with the small being easier to handle. Still, I was right on the edge of it fitting. Probably would have needed to get a laid back seatpost and longer stem (was running a 120mm) over time. Tough choice but overall I am happier with the medium in terms of fit. Hope this helps. |
| I have ridden both | Puzman
Jan 14, 2002 2:41 PM | | Did you find the small with the 120mm stem to be endo-prone?
Thanks! |
| I don't (nm) | Locoman
Jan 15, 2002 6:17 AM | | . |
| I have ridden both | TomB
Jan 15, 2002 8:14 AM | | It felt a bit like it could be because I felt like I was too far over the handlebars. Nut sure it was the 120 or the fact that I felt slightly cramped. Still, it handled great, especially tight single track. I only had it a short time and was pretty aware of my position, so I never really "tested" by being too far forward. Always stayed pretty far back when going downhill. Debated if I would get used to the feel and the small would eventually feel better and, quite frankly, I can't fully answer that. So, here it is at my (and your) size. The small handled a little better in tight stuff but didn't quite feel as comfortable as the medium. Hows that for being noncommittal. Sorry.... |
| |
