Classic & Vintage - Frame Fit Question: Larger Frame vs. Frame that "fits"

I was wondering if anyone could let me know if they ride a frame a bit larger than they are "supposed" to and are there any signifigant negative health issues that could result?

I am 6'1" w/ a 32' inseam and a standover meaurement (you know that thing with the ruler pressed up near you privates and the tape measure to the floor) 33.5' or 85 centimeters. I am currently riding a 57cm/22.5 inch Trek Frame (1977)which according to what I have read, is the correct size. I have about an inch of clearence when I stand over the top tube. I just picked up a 1980 24'/62 cm Trek over the weekend and on a short ride the bike seems more comfortable. The longer top tube seems to suit me since I seem to have a longer torso. I have no stand over clearance as the top tube pushes up on the nether regions. Should I keep or am I asking for trouble?

Also the bike came w/ a Campy Nuovo Gran Sport RD and Diacompe Gran Sport Brakes, does anyone know anything about either?

Thanks

Yes, there certainly is a significant negative health issue. Try cracking the old boys on a top tube that's 2 inches too high and you'll soon see!!

As long as you can stand flat-footed on the ground, straddling the top tube and have some clearance you'll be fine. Clearance, that is, between your pubic bone and the top tube.

As you put it - pushing on the nether regions is fine, pushing on the pubic bone is not.

to me if you can straddle it you can ride it--i grew up riding big bikes--that was the norm in the 70's. I now have a large bike and a small frame compact bike and i still prefer riding the bigger bike because its more comfy----jc

I like them on the big side, too.

I was wondering if anyone could let me know if they ride a frame a bit larger than they are "supposed" to and are there any signifigant negative health issues that could result?

I am 6'1" w/ a 32' inseam and a standover meaurement (you know that thing with the ruler pressed up near you privates and the tape measure to the floor) 33.5' or 85 centimeters. I am currently riding a 57cm/22.5 inch Trek Frame (1977)which according to what I have read, is the correct size. I have about an inch of clearence when I stand over the top tube. I just picked up a 1980 24'/62 cm Trek over the weekend and on a short ride the bike seems more comfortable. The longer top tube seems to suit me since I seem to have a longer torso. I have no stand over clearance as the top tube pushes up on the nether regions. Should I keep or am I asking for trouble?
See: http://sheldonbrown.com/frame-sizing


Also the bike came w/ a Campy Nuovo Gran Sport RD and Diacompe Gran Sport Brakes, does anyone know anything about either?

Nothing special. Any modern derailer, even a $20 cheapie will work way better thatn the old Campag. The brake calipers are fine, would work well with modern levers, cables, brake shoes.

Sheldon "It's The Top Tube That Matters" Brown

+---------------------------------------------------+
| The one-size-fits-all baseball cap worn backward |
| has to be the stupidest fashion trend since the |
| invention of the necktie. |
| Nothing says “I’m a moron” quite like that |
| plastic snap strap across the forehead. |
+---------------------------------------------------+

As forum regulars know, I own 5 road bikes. The Bianchi and the Capos measure 55cm C-T, with slightly longer top tubes, and fit me perfectly. The Peugeot UO-8, about 1.5cm shorter, also fits me well, because its top tube is pretty long. However, the 57cm PKN-10 is simply too big for me, even with the minimum-reach handlebar stem I canibalized from a 50cm yard sale Fuji. (A little sanding quickly converted the ISO 22.2mm stem to the obsolete French 22.0 standard.) Even though I have established the proper relationship among the crankshaft, saddle, and handlebars, the top tube simply seems too high for me, perhaps because it is. :)

Having said that, I also note that, according to vintage racing photos I have seen, relatively taller frames used to be fashionable.

I prefer riding a larger frame. All my regularly ridden bikes are 60-61cm. I can't lean too far forward due to physical limitations yet I still want to use drop bars. On all of my bikes I can comfortably stand over the frame.

I bought a "new" 62 cm frame and the top tube is way too $#%! long. I can't ride the thing.

The guys at rivendell think that everybody these days ride bikes that are too small for them. I think standover is over rated. Ride whatever is comfortable when you are riding, not standing.

When I was young the LBS owner would tell everyone that when your standing over the top tube of the bike and it's not touching your bottom parts the frame is too small. Ride it or get off was his motto. I am not that extreme but I like the top tube to be within a 1/2" or so of the tender parts.

Nothing special. Any modern derailer, even a $20 cheapie will work way better thatn the old Campag.

:eek:

Glad to know you feel that way, Sheldon. Now that we have that settled, I'll give you $5 bucks/ea. for every Campy rear mech ($3 for front, $5 for Super Record) you have. Will pay shipping.

:D

-Kurt

I currently ride and enjoy riding a 25" Paramount, a 23" Bianchi, a 24" Trek, a 21" Traveler, and a large frame Giant. The LBS came up with 58cm (22.8") as my fitted size. All are just fine but the bigger frames are more comfortable on longer touring type rides. I am the same height as when I was twenty and was fitted by the LBS then for a twenty five. That was in the early 70's.

Having said that, I also note that, according to vintage racing photos I have seen, relatively taller frames used to be fashionable.

As I said before, John - I seriously believe both riders have their saddles sitting abnormaly low - 2.5" too low at the least.

As for my view on frame sizing - I'm 5'10", 31" inseam, and frankly, couldn't care less how high the top tube is, so long as it's low enough to allow the saddle to sit at the proper height for me. I generally ride 23"-23.5" frames, but find my 26" Nishiki to be one of my best overall bikes for longer rides. Pedaling out of the saddle is noticably stabler with the high top tube VS. that of a smaller frame.

-Kurt

:eek:

Glad to know you feel that way, Sheldon. Now that we have that settled, I'll give you $5 bucks/ea. for every Campy rear mech ($3 for front, $5 for Super Record) you have. Will pay shipping. :D -Kurt
Kurt,

I was in Harris Cycle a few weeks ago (no, I didn't see Sheldon, but I met Mr. Harris). I saw some beautiful bikes, Waterford, Rivendells, but very little Campagnola stuff. He probably doesn't have much to send you. :mad:

Kurt,

I was in Harris Cycle a few weeks ago (no, I didn't see Sheldon, but I met Mr. Harris). I saw some beautiful bikes, Waterford, Rivendells, but very little Campagnola stuff. He probably doesn't have much to send you. :mad:

Ah, sold it all already, eh Sheldon? ;)

-Kurt

:eek:

Glad to know you feel that way, Sheldon. Now that we have that settled, I'll give you $5 bucks/ea. for every Campy rear mech ($3 for front, $5 for Super Record) you have. Will pay shipping.

:D

-Kurt
Kurt,

I'll up your bid by two bucks per unit. Gee, and I was always under the impression that Sheldon knew what he was talking about. Guess he just can't appreciate perfectly competent but vintage equipment.

Syke
Deranged Few M/C

Regarding frame sizes: I'm 5' 10-1/2", 32" inseam. My 'perfect' frame size is 56cm. Back in the bike boom days, I'd ride a 22" frame if it was a Schwinn, 23-1/2" if it was European (back then frame sizes were done in 2" intervals). Always felt the Schwinn was a bit too small for me, but 24" was too big.

Today, given my love for vintage, I'll ride anything between 56-59cm, and yes the latter is my maximum straddle without pain. If it's a sporting road burner, I prefer the 56. However, if we're talking a long haul tourer, I'd prefer to go to the higher end of my limit - that longer front tube makes for a more comfortable riding position in my eyes.

Bottom line is that there's no hard and fast single size for you. It's a matter of whatever works, and what works is usually a range, not a size.

Syke
Deranged Few M/C

Kurt,

I'll up your bid by two bucks per unit. Gee, and I was always under the impression that Sheldon knew what he was talking about. Guess he just can't appreciate perfectly competent but vintage equipment.


I do appreciate "competent" equipment, but if you think that any 30 year old derailer functions as well as a modern unit, you're living in a retro-fantasy.

I didn't say that cheap new derailers were prettier, or lighter, or better made...but the fact is that they shift more smoothly. This is easily observable by anybody who has used both.

Sheldon "Old Frames, New Parts" Brown

Strangely, I guess I'm in the minority. I used to ride a 62 cm Premis, and picked up a 58 or 59 cm Super Course at a garage sale, and wonders of wonders, it feels WAAAAAAAY better than the big guy. I'm 6'1", with a 34" inseam, but my torso is about the length of a loaf of bread, so I'm constantly locking my elbows on the bigger frame.
Whatever size feels best is what I would ride. I used to think I needed a larger frame, but I ride further, with less strain and duress, on the slightly smaller frame.

It's just too bad they don't make new derailers as nice-looking as the old ones, huh?

I do appreciate "competent" equipment, but if you think that any 30 year old derailer functions as well as a modern unit, you're living in a retro-fantasy.

I didn't say that cheap new derailers were prettier, or lighter, or better made...but the fact is that they shift more smoothly. This is easily observable by anybody who has used both.

Sheldon "Old Frames, New Parts" Brown
This is where it pays to live and ride in Chicago. I have vintage derailleurs on all of my bikes (mostly Shimano 105 stuff), but I don't know if they're smooth because I usually ride in 1 gear. Always. See, Chicago has about 3 hills. Just need one big gear and go.

Bike fitting is rather subjective. Ultimately, I think that a rider's body has the final say on whether the bike fits or not. It helps to have the advice of experts to provide a starting point, but the real expert on what feels right is the one sitting on the saddle.

I'm 5'9"+ with a 30" standover height. I continue to dwell over the size of just about every bike I ride. Long torsos just make for awkward sizing, IMO. I ride mainly 55" frames, but there's always a bit of "contact" that I'd rather not have. I always feel a bit more spry on 21" frames, but they also feel a little small to me, too.

I do appreciate "competent" equipment, but if you think that any 30 year old derailer functions as well as a modern unit, you're living in a retro-fantasy.

I didn't say that cheap new derailers were prettier, or lighter, or better made...but the fact is that they shift more smoothly. This is easily observable by anybody who has used both.

Sheldon "Old Frames, New Parts" Brown

Consider me living in the retro-fantasy then, for I don't care for the smooth, overly-quick shifts (friction mode) that slant-parallelogram derailers offer. I've always preferred the solid, reassuring "clunk" of a straight parallelogram Campagnolo on a Regina freewheel.

I could go on ranting on about how I don't care for Hyperglide in friction mode, but that's another story :)

-Kurt

Consider me living in the retro-fantasy then, for I don't care for the smooth, overly-quick shifts (friction mode) that slant-parallelogram derailers offer. I've always preferred the solid, reassuring "clunk" of a straight parallelogram Campagnolo on a Regina freewheel.

I could go on ranting on about how I don't care for Hyperglide in friction mode, but that's another story :)

I agree Hyperglide isn't so hot in friction mode, though it is hard for me to understand why anybody would prefer the friction mode in the first place. ;-)

However, I see you're in Florida, so you probably don't actually shift all that often anyway. Here in rolling New England, I typically shift a dozen times per mile, so there's no such thing as an "overly-quick" shift, and no downside to "smooth" shifting.

Sheldon "De Gustibus..." Brown

+------------------------------------------------------+
| It were not best that we should all think alike; |
| it is difference of opinion that makes horse-races. |
| -- Mark Twain |
+------------------------------------------------------+

Gentleman, Gentleman (ladies too). Aren't we splitting hairs here? Isn't this why they sell stems from 90mm to 135mm and tall seatposts too?

Isn't the most important thing one's actual position on the bike vs the size of the bike? I have a 53cm TT and, with my 90 degree, 130mm stem and tall seat post, I'm tearing up the road ---and I'm six feet tall.

rk

Having said that, I also note that, according to vintage racing photos I have seen, relatively taller frames used to be fashionable.
Take a look at where the handlebars are, relative to the saddles, on both bikes in John E's photo - close to the same level. You will never see that in today's pro peloton, where the bars are a bunch lower than the saddle and much farther forward than in the photo. (And I agree that it looks like the guy sitting should have a higher saddle, and probably a bigger frame. Harder to tell with guy standing up, at least for me.) The modern racing position is good for aerodynamics and speed, not so good for comfort for the vast majority of us. Bigger frames means it is a lot easier to get the bars to about the same height as the saddle, which for most folks gives the best combination of comfort and aerodynamics/speed. (All within reason, of course - nailing the naughty bits on the top tube in a sudden stop is no fun, regardless of gender.) Smaller frames means having to bend significantly more to reach the bars in a given position unless you use an unusual stem arrangement. That means increased weight on the hands and thus increased "numb hands," increased strain on the back (unless you've kept those abs in shape and have learned over the years how to rotate your pelvis forward, as pro and serious amateur racers have) and increased incidents of cricks in the neck from holding your head up to see out from under your helmet.

This is all discussed in the Rivendell website, and while I think Grant Peterson & Co. sometimes take the argument a bit far, my personal experience is that they are basically correct, at least for those of us who don't race bicycles for a living.

Something else to keep in mind. Once you get past a fairly low level, and certainly by the time you get to the pro ranks, bicycle racing is about pain: enduring it, pushing past it, dealing with it better than the other racers. Considering the agony of blasting up the Galibier or the Tourmalet at TdF speeds when your legs feel like one big lactic acid factory and you want to barf up a lung, the discomfort created by low handlebars pales. For the rest of us, though, that discomfort is enough to ruin many a ride - we ride for pleasure, not for a paycheck, and we stop or slow down long before we get to a level of pain that is considered just another day's work to most of the peloton.

So ride what is comfortable and doesn't threaten to rearrange your personal downstairs plumbing. If it is a bit big or a tad small according to a sizing formula, don't worry about it. But I'll bet that, for most of the folks who frequent the C&V section, a little bit larger frame will be more enjoyable than a little bit smaller one.

I'm 5'9"+ with a 30" standover height. I continue to dwell over the size of just about every bike I ride. Long torsos just make for awkward sizing, IMO. I ride mainly 55" frames, but there's always a bit of "contact" that I'd rather not have. I always feel a bit more spry on 21" frames, but they also feel a little small to me, too.
I'm 5'8" with a bit less standover, but I've found that frames much under 56cm don't allow me to get the saddle high enough without exceding the seatpost limits (I was taught that the knee should be straight with the pedal at the bottom of the stroke). My Triplecross is a 54, the Atala a 56, and the Miyata 512 a 57. Oddly, the Atala seems higher than the 512-must be the 27" wheels;)
Top

I agree Hyperglide isn't so hot in friction mode, though it is hard for me to understand why anybody would prefer the friction mode in the first place. ;-)

Haha. I prefer friction for the ability to shift up to the top of the cluster (being a commuter-type rider, I do this frequently) without fighting Shimano's rebellious click-stops. It's the same reason I love Suntour's eXpress MTB thumb-shifters - while they are indexed, you have the ability to quickly slam up the freewheel with one single movement of the thumb (the smooth, unobtrusive click-stops help too).


However, I see you're in Florida, so you probably don't actually shift all that often anyway. Here in rolling New England, I typically shift a dozen times per mile, so there's no such thing as an "overly-quick" shift, and no downside to "smooth" shifting.

Depends. Whatever was gained in the way of flat ground was lost in urban sprawl down here in South Florida, so I frequently find myself shifting at similar frequency. Probably why I prefer Sturmey-Archer 4-speed hubs over any derailer system...

-Kurt

"Old Frames, new parts"

I hope they make those new Ultratorque cranks with an Italian thread option... could look cool on the Confente...

Almost any slant parallelogram rear mechanism will work better than a vertical or close to vertical oriented parallelogram, just the mechanics.

But Derailer? for Sheldon's spelling!? And here I thought it was a French word...

But Derailer? for Sheldon's spelling!? And here I thought it was a French word...
The French spelling is "dérailleur"

I spell it that way when I'm writing in French, and I pronounce it that way when I'm speaking French.

In English, I use "derailer."

See: http://sheldonbrown.com/derailer for my reasons.

Sheldon "Hooqued On Phonix" Brown

+-----------------------------------------+
| Man invented language to satisfy his |
| deep need to complain. -- Lily Tomlin |
+-----------------------------------------+

I was wondering if anyone could let me know if they ride a frame a bit larger than they are "supposed" to and are there any signifigant negative health issues that could result?

I am 6'1" w/ a 32' inseam and a standover meaurement (you know that thing with the ruler pressed up near you privates and the tape measure to the floor) 33.5' or 85 centimeters. I am currently riding a 57cm/22.5 inch Trek Frame (1977)which according to what I have read, is the correct size. I have about an inch of clearence when I stand over the top tube. I just picked up a 1980 24'/62 cm Trek over the weekend and on a short ride the bike seems more comfortable. The longer top tube seems to suit me since I seem to have a longer torso. I have no stand over clearance as the top tube pushes up on the nether regions. Should I keep or am I asking for trouble?

Also the bike came w/ a Campy Nuovo Gran Sport RD and Diacompe Gran Sport Brakes, does anyone know anything about either?

Thanks


Your experience does not surprise me. Old Treks tended towards shorter top tubes than newer ones. My '77 and '85 Treks are both 24" frames. One has a 57.5cm top tube and the other is a 58. Modern Treks put a 58cm top tube on a 60cm frame and a 57 cm top tube on a 58cm frame. Other manufacturers tend to be even longer, often having the same length for both top and seat tubes.

So, your "size" is some standardized number that is somehow portable across brands and model years. With a longer torso, a more modern geometry might be a better comprimise for you. For me, at 6' with a 35" inseam, I like the old school frames.

The top tube and the seat tube are the most critical elements of frame geometry for fit. (Angles and bottom bracket height also influence fit.) The seat tube has a lot to do with how much drop you have from the saddle to the bars and the top tube largely controls how far away the bars will be.

If the 24" is more comfortable, that's probably the size for you. You may be able to make the smaller frame fit better with a new stem that has more forward extension and allows more height adjustment to get the bars in the same place that they are on your other bike.