# 'Cross bike for a petite woman



## rs3o (Jan 22, 2004)

So my petite wife (a bit less than 5'-2"/156cm) is interested in a do-anything, go-anywhere type of bike for cycling vacations--something than can be ridden on the road, rail trails and perhaps an occasional 'cross race. Naturally, we're looking at a 'cross bike with S&S couplers. So after much research, it looks like Bilenky is the most affordable option. So I took her measurements, we filled out the questionnaire and sent it in. Because of her size, they are recommending a 26" wheeled bike which would give her better standover clearance and less toe overlap (their smallest standard CX frame has a pretty high standover which exceeds her inseam by +2cm and the top tube is about 2cm too long). My initial reaction was that this would be a slow bike on the road with the small wheels and asked what they thought about 650B wheels. They replied that they can do that, but really seem to be pushing the 26" wheels. I would think 650B would be the way to go except that, at this time, the tire options are pretty limited (unless you live in France).

Any thoughts?


----------



## euro-trash (May 1, 2004)

If you can live without the couplings, Redline makes a 43 and a 48 cm cross bike, with, I believe, 700c wheels. 5'2" isn't really that small, I would not sacrafice wheel/tire compatability and choices for smaller wheels. Then again, if she rides something like a 48cm bike with 700s and doesn't like it, then that's a moot point, and it's also moot if couplings are a must have.


----------



## d2p (Jul 29, 2006)

"My initial reaction was that this would be a slow bike on the road with the small wheels "

I am sorry but why would small wheel size make it a slow bike on the road?


----------



## Dajianshan (Jul 15, 2007)

Well, you don't have it all that bad...

I'm looking for a petite woman for my cross bike.


----------



## elmar schrauth (Feb 19, 2007)

ridley has got very small ones


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

My wife had the same problem and fit nicely into the 48 Ritchey Break Away. It actually has better stand over than the Surly Travelers Check 42. Both are travel bikes and run 700c wheels. Before we found these options, she was looking at custom as well. Both of these can be had for many $$$ less than custom.


----------



## Corndog (Jan 18, 2006)

FYI, my wife is 5' 2" and rode a 48 Redline and now a 51 Lapierre with no issues. You should be able to find a bit to fit her easily, without having to use smaller wheels.


----------



## rs3o (Jan 22, 2004)

euro-trash said:


> If you can live without the couplings, Redline makes a 43 and a 48 cm cross bike, with, I believe, 700c wheels. 5'2" isn't really that small, I would not sacrafice wheel/tire compatability and choices for smaller wheels. Then again, if she rides something like a 48cm bike with 700s and doesn't like it, then that's a moot point, and it's also moot if couplings are a must have.


She actually likes her 700c road bike and didn't understand why a cross bike for her couldn't work with the same size wheels. I explained about how classic cross bikes have less BB drop which pushes up the standover height. Couplings are a must. We've done international travel with full size bike boxes and we've had enough. BAB's are the way to go.



d2p said:


> I am sorry but why would small wheel size make it a slow bike on the road?


Everyone knows: 1) Bigger wheels are faster, 2) red bikes are faster and 3) team kit that matches your red bike is faster.

Actually, I don't technically know, but I think it's a widely-held (and perhaps unjustly-held) belief.



Dajianshan said:


> Well, you don't have it all that bad...
> 
> I'm looking for a petite woman for my cross bike.


Classic. Marx brothers fan?



Mootsie said:


> My wife had the same problem and fit nicely into the 48 Ritchey Break Away. It actually has better stand over than the Surly Travelers Check 42. Both are travel bikes and run 700c wheels. Before we found these options, she was looking at custom as well. Both of these can be had for many $$$ less than custom.


I didn't realize the Traveler's Check went that small. The SO height would _just_ work in the 42cm frame. That might be a possibility, albeit a pretty hefty one.

I actually have my own Ritchey Breakaway and was looking at one for my wife but could never find a SO height for the 48. Do you know where to find it or could you tell me what it is? If that works, it would be the way to go. I think any way you slice it, another wheel size is going to be a PITA whether you're dealing with limited tire availability or just borrowing a tube when you're out on the road.

Thanks all for the comments--very helpful.


----------



## Reparto (Apr 25, 2007)

My wife is 5'2" and rides a Ridley in a 50cm. 700c with a 90mm stem.


----------



## kdiddy (Feb 15, 2008)

Check out Kerry Litka's site - she is smaller than your wife and rides a few 26" wheeled cross bikes:
http://www.kerry-litka.com/main/wordpress/my-bikes/


----------



## rs3o (Jan 22, 2004)

rs3o said:


> Do you know where to find it or could you tell me what it is?


It helps to ask the manufacturer. Ritchey says the standover height is approximately 72cm which will work better for my wife than the Surley. It's cheaper, too since Surly charges extra for the case.

Now the only problem is that we'll have matching bikes.


----------



## bunnyhpr (Mar 6, 2008)

Toe overlap on the small bikes is a big problem when you race cross. 

Look at standover height carefully, Giant has a 48cm cross bike but it only has tall standover height for that frame size.

Good luck


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

DeSalvo uses 26" for their two smallest frame sizes:
http://www.desalvocycles.com/?p=steel_cx

I think the Bilenky folk are being smart. For cross racing specifically, the smaller wheels will allow a bigger main triangle, better for shouldering. Technical handling will be much nicer. Rolling resistance is a negligible concern IMO.


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

rs3o said:


> It helps to ask the manufacturer. Ritchey says the standover height is approximately 72cm which will work better for my wife than the Surley. It's cheaper, too since Surly charges extra for the case.
> 
> Now the only problem is that we'll have matching bikes.


The standard Ritchey case as you know is soft sided. You may want to consider the S & S hard case. It also "officially" meets airline regs where the soft one doesn't. Have fun with whatever you choose.


----------



## Cyclo-phile (Sep 22, 2005)

pretender said:


> Rolling resistance is a negligible concern IMO.


Yes, but the tire selection for 26" wheels is pretty slim for anything narrower than 1.5". Schwalbe is the only company I can think of off the top of my head. FWIW, my daughter who is 4'10" fits well on a 47cm Kona JTS. I set it up with a zero setback post, 80mm stem, and Salsa Poco 36cm bars. She wears size 38 shoes and has plenty of toe clearance.

To the OP, I realize that the JTS won't meet your travel requirements. I just wanted to put this information out there for any others who may be looking for a bike that'll fit a short rider.


----------



## rs3o (Jan 22, 2004)

Cyclo-phile said:


> Yes, but the tire selection for 26" wheels is pretty slim for anything narrower than 1.5".


That may be the deal breaker for the smaller wheels. 700c=lots of tire options, especially on-road.



pretender said:


> DeSalvo uses 26" for their two smallest frame sizes:
> http://www.desalvocycles.com/?p=steel_cx
> 
> I think the Bilenky folk are being smart. For cross racing specifically, the smaller wheels will allow a bigger main triangle, better for shouldering. Technical handling will be much nicer. Rolling resistance is a negligible concern IMO.


All good points. Definitely going to be tough for my wife to decide.



Mootsie said:


> The standard Ritchey case as you know is soft sided. You may want to consider the S & S hard case. It also "officially" meets airline regs where the soft one doesn't. Have fun with whatever you choose.


That's a good idea. It'd be nice to have one hard case and one soft case in the family. I expect that I'll be doing some solo trips where I'll take my bike along and the option of using a hard case for those trips is attractive.


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

Cyclo-phile said:


> Yes, but the tire selection for 26" wheels is pretty slim for anything narrower than 1.5". Schwalbe is the only company I can think of off the top of my head. FWIW, my daughter who is 4'10" fits well on a 47cm Kona JTS. I set it up with a zero setback post, 80mm stem, and Salsa Poco 36cm bars. She wears size 38 shoes and has plenty of toe clearance.
> 
> To the OP, I realize that the JTS won't meet your travel requirements. I just wanted to put this information out there for any others who may be looking for a bike that'll fit a short rider.


+1 on the tire selection. My wife has run the smaller wheels and finding tires is problematic at best.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

Found a pretty good selection of 559mm road slicks here:
http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/tires/559.html

Panaracer Pasela TG 26x1.25 would be a great choice.

The wife raced cross last season on Schwalbe 26x1.35 tires, no problems. Another good option for cross racing would be a light semi-slick cross-country racing tire, like the Kenda Kozmik Lite (one of which I just installed this morning on her bike with Stan's NoTubes, will know after Sunday how they're working).

With the interwebs, I don't think tire choice is an insurmountable problem. If it were me, I'd prefer a bike that fits.


----------



## Sadlebred (Nov 19, 2002)

I'm 5'3' and have a custom Dean CX bike with 700c wheels. At 5'2", your wife should fit fine on 700c wheels. The tire choices are much more numerous! There is some toe overlap on my bike, but I have learned how to deal with it and avoid any issues.


----------



## Ernesto67 (Feb 13, 2007)

Explain to me how an man of average height is somehow an expert on the best fit for a petite woman.

I find it ironic that most men of average height feel the need to make decisions on the correct wheel and frame size for a petite woman. Have any of you ever noticed that women who are the same height as men tend to ride (on average) a smaller frame? Women's anatomies are radically different. 

There is a quite a bit of variation in inseam, torso, and arm lengths among women. Some 5'2" women can ride a 700c bike, others need a bike with 26" or 650 wheels. Wheel size should be determined by frame size and top tube length. If a woman (or any rider, for that matter) needs a top tube that is less than 50cm, the smaller size wheels are a better option. It is nearly impossible to build a frame without significant toeclip overlap unless the bike has smaller wheels. 

It is unfortunate that for cyclocross style bikes, there are very few options for tires. The Schwalbe 26x1.35 CX Pro are the only available UCI legal cross tires. However, if a rider is not looking to race UCI cross races, any normal mtn bike tire or slick will work just fine. 

And to the person who has his 4'10" daughter on the 47 Jake the Snake with an 80mm stem - your daughter must have some unique anthropomorphic measurements to fit such a contraption - my guess is she has very short legs and a long torso. At least, I hope she does, as any other body type would clearly be at a huge disadvantage on that bike. Kerry Litka is 4'11", with neither significantly short or long legs (in fact, she is quite proportional, as I have seen her race and she looks like a miniature normal size person, she doesn't exhibit the typical female body type of shorter arms). She races a 46cm road bike with 650c wheels at the elite level and seems to have no trouble keeping the pace with the other women who ride 700c wheels. For cross she has raced a 44cm IF with 700c wheels and recently switched to a bike with 26" wheels. She writes on her site that the 26" wheel bike was the better fit because she no longer had to contend with toeclip overlap. Also, the smaller wheels are only at a speed disadvantage over 25mph. And if you really are concerned about the smaller wheels being 'slower', the solution is to simply change the gear ratios to make it comparable to a 700c bike (there is a reason that time trial bikes used to be made with 650 wheels and 56 tooth chain rings).

If the custom frame builder recommended smaller wheels, then that is how that builder would need to design the frame to meet your wife's geometry. She probably has shorter arms, needs a shorter top tube, thus requiring the smaller wheels. 

Choosing a bike based on availability of tires is silly - would you rather have an ill fitting bike or a bike that fits? Do you realize that an ill fitting bike will affect handling, cause biomechanical issues, and can possibly lead to injury? I mean, nobody says "My bike fits me poorly, handles like crap, and gives me a significant amount of discomfort, but it sure is easy to get tires for it."


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

Ernesto67 said:


> I find it ironic that most men of average height feel the need to make decisions on the correct wheel and frame size for a petite woman.


Which makes this post doubly ironic. (Irony squared?)


----------

