Cyclocross - Another Frame Size question 58 or 61 cm?

I am a road rider, recently moved to a less road friendly area, and looking for a cross bike to use on gravel roads, trails, and general all around riding. I have figured out what bike I want, now am just trying to decide on which size (my measurements are sorta in between sizes).

Currently, I ride a 61 cm road frame with 59 cm top tube and 59.3 cm seat tube (c-c). I am trying to decide between a cross frame with a 57 cm or 59 cm top tube (seat tube angles are 73 degrees, where as my road bike 72.5) and they have 58 and 61 cm seat tubes (c-t).

Should I get the size 58 or the size 61? I am looking for some practical considerations (obviously fitting items like stem length, fore/aft saddle, others . . ) that I should take into consideration.

Thanks!

It sounds like the larger frame pretty much matches your current road frame, so if you like the fit, stick with that. I wouldn't worry about that half-degree difference in STA.

Thanks. Part of the reason I am questioning is that rule of thumb "get a cyclocross frame 2 cm less than your road frame" -- which of course makes me wonder if there is some practical reason to go smaller.

There is a lot of debate about this. I've read both stories. I opted to go cross size the same as my road size. (Partially cause I was able to get a good deal.) The bike rides fine and I feel good on it.

Thanks. Part of the reason I am questioning is that rule of thumb "get a cyclocross frame 2 cm less than your road frame" -- which of course makes me wonder if there is some practical reason to go smaller.


FYI: There is a smoking deal on a 59cm '09 Gary Fisher Presidio at my local bike shop. (Omaha, NE)

A 59 cm Fisher would be great. Except I don't live in Lincoln, NE anymore.

If doing more offroading, the smaller size might be easier to maneuver, and keep the top tube out of your "ahem" parts. For road riding, even gravel - the bigger bike might be a better fit - if you like to ride stretched out.

Thanks. Part of the reason I am questioning is that rule of thumb "get a cyclocross frame 2 cm less than your road frame" -- which of course makes me wonder if there is some practical reason to go smaller.That rule of thumb comes from the days when cross bikes had to be built with high bottom brackets to prevent toeclips from dragging in the mud.

That rule of thumb comes from the days when cross bikes had to be built with high bottom brackets to prevent toeclips from dragging in the mud.

Flargle -- so cross bikes no longer have higher bottom brackets? That was a question I had.

Flargle -- so cross bikes no longer have higher bottom brackets? That was a question I had.AFAIK most makers these days use pretty much the same BB drop for their cross bikes as road. The BB will be higher off the ground simply because of the bigger tires. Ridley cross bikes are an exception.

Good to know -- and I knew Ridley's were sized differently, I didn't realize that was the reason. Again, thanks!

Good to know -- and I knew Ridley's were sized differently, I didn't realize that was the reason. Again, thanks!The other weird thing about Ridley frames is they base their frame size on seattube center-to-center, instead of center-to-top, so a Ridley 54 is more like a 56 or 57 in "normal" sizing. Really, you need to take every number from the geometry charts and be a bit of a detective.