Singlespeed & Fixed Gear - Tall Guy - 61 vs 64

I'm a pretty tall guy, (Somewhere around 6'4") and I have an inseam of about 34.5"

I have decided to go for our beloved BD Messenger, but am having a hard time deciding which size frame to get (61cm, or 64cm)

I know you don't want to click to another page, so here are the sizing dimensions for the bike:

http://i26.tinypic.com/29z37up.gif




What worries me about the 64 cm frame is the standover height, and potentially the toptube length. My inseam is somewhere around 34.5 in (= 876.3 millimeters) and the standover on the 64 is 880. The toptube on the 61 is 20mm shorter than the 64, and I don't really know how to size the top tube. (I looked on Sheldon Brown, and didn't find anything specifically regarding how to find the right top tube length)

This bike is going to be a daily driver, so I am not too worried about my body dying as I ride this, but I would obviously prefer the better fit.

What do you think, 61 vs 64?

http://www.coloradocyclist.com/bikefit/

This site helped me a lot when I was looking into sizing(and it has how to measure top tube length). Also, I'm ~6'2" with a 34" inseam and I find the 57cm kilo fits me fairly comfortably. You'll have a longer reach than I, and with your slightly longer inseam the 61 will probably be the most comfortable fit. However, if someone else sees otherwise on this forum, I would probably defer to them as I'm not exactly the most experienced one on here.

I'm 6'4" with a 36-37" inseam. My roadbike is a 63cm Trek and my SS is listed as 61cm. I'm comfortable on both of the bikes. I show a lot of seatpost and stem, but I'm OK with that.

Arthur

I see that Domovoi recommends the 61 over the 64, do you agree TOKI?

I am also 6'4" (192cm with a 91cm pbh). I have an XL Giant OCR-Touring (60cm TT/58.5cm) ST and it feels way too small. The word on the street is that you need about 2-3cm of standover, otherwise fit to the TT. You are supposed to be riding it, not standing over it. Take into account that just about any shoes you wear are going to add 1-3cm.

What you say is true, but at the list height the standover is still barely taller than I am.

I'd go with the 61. I'm 6'4", and I ride a 61 road frame (59 track). 64 would feel too large, I think, unless I grew another 3 inches.

I'd go with the 61. I'm 6'4", and I ride a 61 road frame (59 track). 64 would feel too large, I think, unless I grew another 3 inches.

Not that I'm riding the same bike, but my 1988 Trek 400 fg is a 64cm frame and I'm 6'6" with a 36" inseam. The additional room on the top tube gives me space to accomodate having really long arms.

Even though the standover might be a bit high, if you've got long arms you might want to go with the taller frame. (I mean freaky long arms; like a 37/38 sleeve on dress shirts.)

OP sounds like he has shorter legs. I'm 6'2" with average proportions (35.5 inseam).

Sizing yourself by using the ST length has never made sense to me--your seat goes wherever you need it and your pedals are always where they need to be (that weird setback adjustment aside).

On a too-small frame it's the cramped, hunched reach that makes it obvious how small it is. That's where it gets complicated for tall riders who have shorter legs and are sizing themselves into frames based on a seat tube or standover--until you stack a long stem you're a little hunched, and even when using stem/bar adjustment that seems to put your upper body into place, it's going to screw with the steering once you're out of the saddle, past the steerer and mashing. Try that with one of those kid's BMX bikes that have the bars tilted halfway to horizontal for a teenager and you'll notice the instability, but more obvious.

Oh, my suggestion is like the one above; don't worry about the standover--properly start and stop and you'll never touch the frame.

im 6'7" and ride a 64cm messenger. my brother sometimes rides it and he is 6'3". neither of us have a problem riding the bike!

The top tube length differs by 2cm......2 cm is practically nothing. Without knowing anything else about your bodily proportions, no one here can tell you which one of these will be better for you. The difference is so minor, you'll get buy on either size. If you really want a better answer without having to suffer through a fitting session at a LBS, try this fit calculator. It you take your measurements carefully, it spits out surprisingly good results. Chose the frame that is closest to the output.

http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=FIT_CALCULATOR_INTRO

Go with the 61cm. I hate frames that are too big.

Arthur

Go with the 61cm. I hate frames that are too big.

Arthur

i completely agree. im 6'3", my hour is a 61, and riding my friends 58 is waaay more fun. feels more nimble and twitchy.

I'm 6'4" with about a 34" ~ 34.5" inseam and have a 61cm Mercier Kilo. Fits great.

well which frame has the top tube+stem length right for your fit?

I just sold my 58cm FG and man it was nimble around campus. I now have and have had a few 61cm frames that actually feel pretty good and I am 6'2 wearing a 34" inseam in my pants. I would say 61cm with a little longer seat post and maybe more stem.