Mountain Bikes · Public discussion

K2 Zed 4.0 Biggie Size

Started by Jsntg · · Last activity · 4 posts · 2,107 views

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Mountain Bikes
Published
31 August 2003
Last activity
1 September 2003
Original author
Jsntg
Posts
4
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
2,107
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–4 of 4
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Looking at picking up a new K2 Zed 4.0 and wondering about the fit. Any tall riders in the group who
    own one? I'm 6'3, a buck eighty and have a 35" inseam. Trying to figure out if the 'Way Big' (their
    term) would be too big. Unfortunately, the nearest K2 dealer is 3 hours away so more than a virtural
    fit isn't much of an option. Their frame spec:

    Head Tube 160mm / 6.3" Effective Top Tube 600mm / 23.6" Actual Top Tube 575mm / 22.6" Chain Stay
    425mm / 16.7" Wheel Base 1080mm / 42.5" Head Angle 74.0 Seat Angle 73.0 Seat Tube (c-t) 510mm /
    20.1" Fork Offset 42mm / 1.7" Fork Length 455mm / 17.9" Standover 820mm / 32.3" BB Height 301mm /
    11.9" BB Drop 32 / 1.3"

    Not really sure what the difference b/w 'Effective' and 'Actual' is. I'm comfortable with the
    wheelbase and angles, just need a vector on the overall geometry and tall guy compatibility.

    Thanks,

    Hugh

  2. "JSNTG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Looking at picking up a new K2 Zed 4.0 and wondering about the fit. Any tall riders in the group
    who own one? I'm 6'3, a buck eighty and have a 35" inseam. Trying to figure out if the 'Way Big'
    (their term) would be too big. Unfortunately, the nearest K2 dealer is 3 hours away so more than a
    virtural fit isn't much of an option. Their frame spec:

    Head Tube 160mm / 6.3" Effective Top Tube 600mm / 23.6" Actual Top Tube 575mm / 22.6" Chain Stay
    425mm / 16.7" Wheel Base 1080mm / 42.5" Head Angle 74.0 Seat Angle 73.0 Seat Tube (c-t) 510mm /
    20.1" Fork Offset 42mm / 1.7" Fork Length 455mm / 17.9" Standover 820mm / 32.3" BB Height 301mm /
    11.9" BB Drop 32 / 1.3"

    Not really sure what the difference b/w 'Effective' and 'Actual' is. I'm comfortable with the
    wheelbase and angles, just need a vector on the overall geometry and tall guy compatibility.

    Thanks,

    Hugh

    Try asking the guys at the Proflex/K2 forum.

    idriders.comYaBB.pl

  3. I've got a way big frame and I'm 6 ft with a 32 inseam and about 25 on you. You may have to get a
    410 mm seatpost fror those daddy long legs.

    Fire up MTB 03

  4. [email hidden] wrote in news:16585-3F525521-269@storefull- 2155.public.lawson.webtv.net:

    Quoted message said:

    I've got a way big frame and I'm 6 ft with a 32 inseam and about 25 on you. You
    may have to get a 410 mm seatpost fror those daddy long legs.

    Whereas I have a Large (Zed 3.0, but same frame) and a 33" inseam, and it's just about as tall as
    I'd be willing to go--I have maybe a 3" standover margin. The OP really should reconsider the
    virtual fit thing.

    Geo
    --
    George Mealer geo*AT*snarksoft*DOT*com

    "Alright, it's Saturday night...I have no date, a two-liter bottle
    of Shasta, and my all-Rush mix tape. Let's rock!" -- Philip J. Fry

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.