What size is this bike?
September 30, 2012 4:12 PM Subscribe
Can you tell me (or make an educated guess) from these photos what frame size mountain bike this is?
The bike is a 1997 Specialized Stumpjumper M2. These are the only pictures I have. With better photos, I feel like I could compare the the size of the wheels to the seat post to figure it out, but the perspective in these shots makes that difficult. Maybe you know some advanced math or some bit of trivia about these bikes to help me out. Thanks.
The bike is a 1997 Specialized Stumpjumper M2. These are the only pictures I have. With better photos, I feel like I could compare the the size of the wheels to the seat post to figure it out, but the perspective in these shots makes that difficult. Maybe you know some advanced math or some bit of trivia about these bikes to help me out. Thanks.
Another vote for relatively small based on the head tube length.
posted by Confess, Fletch at 4:35 PM on September 30, 2012
posted by Confess, Fletch at 4:35 PM on September 30, 2012
Bikepedia says the sizes offered were 13.5", 15.5", 17", 18", 19", 20.5"
Based on a Google image search, I think I might've been wrong about it being a smaller size. The head tube is pretty short on all of them, and the top tube slopes more and more steeply as the sizes get smaller, to the point where on the smallest size the top tube and seatstays are virtually parallel. In your pics it looks like there's a significant angle between the stays and top tube, so it's probably closer to the middle of the range.
posted by jon1270 at 5:14 PM on September 30, 2012
Based on a Google image search, I think I might've been wrong about it being a smaller size. The head tube is pretty short on all of them, and the top tube slopes more and more steeply as the sizes get smaller, to the point where on the smallest size the top tube and seatstays are virtually parallel. In your pics it looks like there's a significant angle between the stays and top tube, so it's probably closer to the middle of the range.
posted by jon1270 at 5:14 PM on September 30, 2012
Response by poster: Gah, that was a poorly written question. And seat tube; I know better. I was trying to look at the seat tube length relative to the wheels.
I think y'all are right, the top tube does look short. And the the joint at the top, head, and down tubes is a good clue, too. I'm still having trouble with the weird perspective, though.
My favorite bike ever was a '93 M2 and I'm dying to find another one. I like a smaller bike, but I still might have to pass on this one. Thanks.
posted by lost_cause at 5:16 PM on September 30, 2012
I think y'all are right, the top tube does look short. And the the joint at the top, head, and down tubes is a good clue, too. I'm still having trouble with the weird perspective, though.
My favorite bike ever was a '93 M2 and I'm dying to find another one. I like a smaller bike, but I still might have to pass on this one. Thanks.
posted by lost_cause at 5:16 PM on September 30, 2012
Response by poster: Dangit jon, I was ready to walk away from this one...
Yeah, mine had a fairly sloped top tube, and a tall seatpost, if I remember right. I think they were designed that way, with a low standover height in mind. A little BMX style maybe.
There's a whole thread devoted to these bikes here.
posted by lost_cause at 5:26 PM on September 30, 2012
Yeah, mine had a fairly sloped top tube, and a tall seatpost, if I remember right. I think they were designed that way, with a low standover height in mind. A little BMX style maybe.
There's a whole thread devoted to these bikes here.
posted by lost_cause at 5:26 PM on September 30, 2012
I might be wrong, but, based on jon1270's sizes, I think it's probably a 17".
posted by box at 7:55 PM on September 30, 2012
posted by box at 7:55 PM on September 30, 2012
No.
Modern mountain bikes usually have a very sloped top tube, and figuring out the Effective Top Tube Length to make some sort of comparison with another mountain bike would be difficult, without actually being able to measure it.
The seat tube length number would be meaningless, especially when compared to a model from '93, which may not have much of a sloped top tube at all. (again, think Effective)
The angles between these two models are going to be drastically different as well - for example: i'm sure your '93 mtb didn't have suspension?
Best thing to do is take 'er for a ride. Difficult to do on an online purchase, I understand. Looking at the photos and components, I'd pass right by this one. Your M2, if you still had it, and tuned up, would be a way better ride. My guess though is that this frame is hyooooge.
posted by alex_skazat at 8:05 PM on September 30, 2012
Modern mountain bikes usually have a very sloped top tube, and figuring out the Effective Top Tube Length to make some sort of comparison with another mountain bike would be difficult, without actually being able to measure it.
The seat tube length number would be meaningless, especially when compared to a model from '93, which may not have much of a sloped top tube at all. (again, think Effective)
The angles between these two models are going to be drastically different as well - for example: i'm sure your '93 mtb didn't have suspension?
Best thing to do is take 'er for a ride. Difficult to do on an online purchase, I understand. Looking at the photos and components, I'd pass right by this one. Your M2, if you still had it, and tuned up, would be a way better ride. My guess though is that this frame is hyooooge.
posted by alex_skazat at 8:05 PM on September 30, 2012
Are you sure it doesn’t say the size on it, maybe on the seat or down tube near the bottom bracket?
posted by bongo_x at 10:44 PM on September 30, 2012
posted by bongo_x at 10:44 PM on September 30, 2012
Response by poster: Best thing to do is take 'er for a ride. Difficult to do on an online purchase, I understand.
That was exactly the problem. Online auction and the seller didn't reply to my size question. Given the lack of a definitive answer, I took a pass, but it was tough watching it go for under $250. Thanks for eveyone's input.
Your M2, if you still had it, and tuned up, would be a way better ride.
Other than obvious fit, why do you say that? My bike had good components (including a supspension fork), but nothing super great. I'm looking for a complete bike, and I see components as things that can be upgraded as they break. The two biggest reasons I got rid of mine were the threaded headset and lack of a replaceable derailleur hanger; the later 90's models are threadless with a replaceable hanger.
posted by lost_cause at 7:36 AM on October 1, 2012
That was exactly the problem. Online auction and the seller didn't reply to my size question. Given the lack of a definitive answer, I took a pass, but it was tough watching it go for under $250. Thanks for eveyone's input.
Your M2, if you still had it, and tuned up, would be a way better ride.
Other than obvious fit, why do you say that? My bike had good components (including a supspension fork), but nothing super great. I'm looking for a complete bike, and I see components as things that can be upgraded as they break. The two biggest reasons I got rid of mine were the threaded headset and lack of a replaceable derailleur hanger; the later 90's models are threadless with a replaceable hanger.
posted by lost_cause at 7:36 AM on October 1, 2012
« Older Better study resources for understanding ELISA... | Does the 11th amendment prevent you from suing... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by jon1270 at 4:27 PM on September 30, 2012