Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling - Question about Frame Size

I know my racing bike (58cm with an effective 58cm TT) fits me well. I ride it with the 6degree stem flipped downward. I just checked and the handlebars are about 3 inches lower than the saddle. Since I am preparing to buy a new steel frame (maybe cross check) for long distance events and will want to go more for comfort, I will probably want to have my handlebars around saddle level. This said, will I want the same size frame(58) or possibly a size up(60)? The only bike shop around that had a Surly in stock had a 56 and it felt small. FWIW I am 1.85m (6'1") with a 87.5 inseam. Thanks for helping the novice 'ldc'. :p

I am essentially the same height and inseam as you and used to race on a 59 (about 20 years ago when we generally rode bigger bikes than is the current fashion.)

Today I use a 60 cm frame for my long distance riding and my next frame (almost finished!) will be 62.5 c-c.

So you could say that I am fan of bigger frames for more comfort. Some folks worry about smushing their nuts on the top tube, which I guess is a legitimate concern if you are in the habit of jumping off of your bike and landing with both feet on the ground. I am not, so even frames with less than zero crotch clearance work just fine for me. In your shoes I would definitely give the 60 a hard look.

HTH!

I think you are on the right track in understanding that you will favor a more "relaxed" or upright position on an LDX bike. Its also true that larger frame will usually bring a longer wheel base, a shorter stem, and therefore more stable steering.

Off hand I think a 60cm would be over kill. But much of that judgment is based upon "touring" frame metrics. In other words, aggressive race-style frames of 60cm may please you as much as a 58cm tourer. It depends on wheelbase and fork rake.....

I am 6'1" with a 87cm PBH and recently built a bike to help me be more comfortable on long rides. Although I rode a racing frame sized 57cm c-c, I started with a 60cm steel frame from the early 80's. It has relaxed angles compared to the race bike, and with a quill stem, I have no problem adjusting the handlebars to seat height. Standover is 87cm, but after 1000 miles I don't feel I'm riding a dangerously tall bike at all. In fact, I am very comfortable.

I know my racing bike (58cm with an effective 58cm TT) fits me well. I ride it with the 6degree stem flipped downward. I just checked and the handlebars are about 3 inches lower than the saddle. Since I am preparing to buy a new steel frame (maybe cross check) for long distance events and will want to go more for comfort, I will probably want to have my handlebars around saddle level. This said, will I want the same size frame(58) or possibly a size up(60)? The only bike shop around that had a Surly in stock had a 56 and it felt small. FWIW I am 1.85m (6'1") with a 87.5 inseam. Thanks for helping the novice 'ldc'. :p

I like my frames with that old school fit, namely as tall as possible. The problem with current threadless fork is not enough adjustment. With a quill stem you can get the bars up high with no problem. If you use a Nitto Technomic stem, 3" - 4" is no problem. On current frames with a threadless fork it's a lot more difficult.

personally I like the bottom of the drops up at my seat height - much more civil, 'specially for all-day events

how long of a stem do you use on the road bike? if its 110 or less, I would stick with the 58. the top tube is 58 on the cross check, but the seat angle is 72 or 72.5 which effectively shortens the top tube a bit if you keep your position relative to the bb... anyhow, with the stem fliped up and a slightly longer stem you can keep you reach the same.

how long of a stem do you use on the road bike? if its 110 or less, I would stick with the 58. the top tube is 58 on the cross check, but the seat angle is 72 or 72.5 which effectively shortens the top tube a bit if you keep your position relative to the bb... anyhow, with the stem fliped up and a slightly longer stem you can keep you reach the same.

I use a 120 stem on the road bike right now. Been slowly working on my flexibility and at some point would like to get even lower so then a 130 and 10 or 17 degree flipped...:p

Just recognize there may be some mileage where having a really low position may not be as attractive as it seems in the abstract. Your neck will tell you.

I would be somewhat wary of going too big on a production frame, because they are increasing the top tube length as well as the seat tube length. I would rather see a normal stem length than a short one. But I have to admit that's just my biases.

Just recognize there may be some mileage where having a really low position may not be as attractive as it seems in the abstract. Your neck will tell you.

I may have not been clear, but I only desire a deep, low position on my racing bike. To go fast you can increase power or reduce aero drag, or preferably both. :thumb:

I am going to check the geometry of the 56 now and the 58 and see how they differ on the cross check. I'll get this sorted sooner or later...

The Surly pacer might be a better option for you, mattm seems to really like his. The wheel base is shorter but you can still fit 32c tires and fenders.

Keep in mind when you raise the bars they get closer to you, so if you raise them 3" you may end up keeping the same or a 1 cm smaller stem size for a bike with a 2cm longer top tube.

You can model your current fit and compare it to different frame sizes with this flash site: http://www.bikeforest.com/CAD/bcad.php