RiseAlways

I feel stretched out while tossing a leg over it, mounting and dismounting. Of course when I ride and starting out at a stand still I have it leaned to one side, left pedal up to start up, I push down and away I go. Stopping of course at a stop sign etc. I've got to come to a stop and lean again or stand on my toes a bit. It's not like its REALLY big to me, its just that "the boys" are pretty much resting there on the top tube unless I'm tilted to one side. I should probably take a photo of me just standing over the bike when its uncomfortable (no tilt) and when its fine (tilting it to one side).
I'm also going to hit up my friend at the local bike shop who's a C&V guy (he races etc on both vintage and modern) and see what he thinks.

RiseAlways

Beautiful Fuji! I saw a touring model not long ago, and at EXACTLY my side but it was the price tag was about $250 to high!

You described exactly the issue I initially had, my reach while riding sucked! I took it from the original 85mm length stem, put a Nitto Technomic stem on (I trimmed it up though, as I don't need all of its crazy length), then went with Nitto Noodles, a pair of old Dia compe Aero levers I restored and pushed my seat up as far as it would go, now its near perfect "while riding." I may experiment with a zero setback post though, I think it may improve it just a bit more.
Of course the other "tiny" improvement, and only, specifically in terms of a standoever height, would be to drop it down to a set of 700c wheels, but that will only subtract a small amount anyway. Perhaps in the future,.. cant afford a set of wheels now and these are original to the bike and may as well be brand new!...hardly ridden.

ThermionicScott 

Yeah, sounds like you'd be happier on a frame that's just a little smaller. Have you checked out the C&V frame swapping thread yet?

SquidPuppet

+1

Standover means nothing to me. I ride bikes that any "professional" fitter would say are way too big for me. Oddly, I feel very comfortable on huge bikes, and feel horribly cramped on the "correct" sized bikes. I ride what I like, not what charts tell me I'm supposed to ride.

agmetal

Thanks! Sadly, that bike was totaled when a car got in my way in September, and the bike I've been riding in its place (as a wet-weather/winter bike) isn't as comfortable or nice-looking. That was set up with an 80mm Origin 8 stem, I think the Classic Pro. The bars were the Velo Orange/Dajia Shallow Drop, which have about 75mm of reach. I had a 700C wheel in front, and 27" in the rear, both with 32mm tires. I usually stay on the saddle when I stop, with my right foot on the pedal, and my left toe on the ground.

dddd

^^ seems like a good data-point here^^

Corben

Ha ha...

CenturionIM

Horizontal reach is more important, but it seems like you got that one right already.
Just make sure you can stand over the top tube comfortably. That is about the only thing that matters vertically besides adjusting seat tube.

The Golden Boy 

I'm about 5'8" with a 30" inseam and ride a 21" or 54cm bike. But reading what the real geometry is... My favorite bike of what Trek called a 21" had a 52.2 seat tube with a 56.1 top tube.

When I ride a 22.5" or 57 it's big for my legs and the seat post is slammed.





Unlike some people, I'm not comfortable with not being able to touch the ground with my junk on the TT.

rootboy 

Same here.

rootboy 

You might try this, just for fun. Anyone remember the old fomula that was espoused by some way back when? Including in Eugene A. Sloane's book, as I remember.

Times your 30 inch inseam by 109 percent. This figure should be the measurement from the top of your saddle, in line with the seat post, to the pedal spindle when the crank arm is in the fully extended lower position and in line with the seat tube.

This will raise some eyebrows, some poo-poo's and some slings and arrows, I'm sure. But it worked for me for years. Still does, more or less.

RiseAlways

I get 32.7 if done using 30 x109% (as that from the top of the saddle to the center of the pedal spindle I'm assuming?)
My saddle is set just above that measurement, so if I try this I can lower it just a little.

RiseAlways

...I can touch the ground!! hahaha

spdntrxi

I have two road bikes.. 1) have TT 54.5 and a 110mm stem.. the other has a TT 53.7 with a 130mm stem. The later is my Race bike.. so I like to be a little longer lower feeling. They have different bars so the reach ends up being nearly equal, with a little more saddle to bar drop on the race bike. I'm an inch taller then the OP with same inseam and both bikes are comfortable.

jiangshi

Cycling inseam ≠ pants inseam. The OP should know there is a difference before he does the math.

RiseAlways

I had used the old method of holding a book between your legs standing against a wall' then having another mark the top of the book on the wall.
had heard that method from others dozens of times....
would that have been incorrect?

Antieverything

I'm 5'7/30" inseam as well. I ride anything from 50cm/110mm stem/5" of exposed seatpost to 56cm/70mm stem/slammed seatpost. I think as long as I can set me saddle height and reach the same then it's rideable. I do have a lot of nutrub on the 56 but it's not like I'm straddling the top tube all day. I tried some 56, 57, 58 just because they were cheap but I can set the saddle low enough without hip rock when pedaling. I guess it depends on who measured and how they dId it, c-c or c-t, then saddle type also comes into play.

jiangshi

Nope, that is correct.

repechage

I remember that from the first edition of that book when I was a kid.
Saddle height really can't be done with a formula, pedaling style, flexibility and typical cadence all play a part, forgot fitness too.
Almost forgot, the shoes you will be most often using.
I think approaching 110% of you leg length will steer one toward a slower cadence and higher gears. I found that from personal experience. It was a revelation when I learned that the typical gear I used was higher than the gear limit I would be allowed to race with when I was young. Had to rethink that!
Pedaling style is major too, I recently saw some old race footage of Anquetiel and he by choice or need had to have a high saddle his toes were always pointing down, like he was prancing on the pedals, maybe he was.

rootboy 

Yeah, that'll work. I should have added, "real" inseam measurement. Length of a pant leg has nothing to do with anything.
The way I learned to measure it was with one of those flexible cloth yard long seamstress tapes. Put one end under your heel, bare footed, and take the tape up to your sit bone on that side.

This, of course, doesn't tell you what frame size you should ride. But gives you an idea of proper saddle height. You say,
"My saddle is set just above that measurement, so if I try this I can lower it just a little."

What size frame? Fist full of seat post showing?

rootboy 

Of course, that's just a start. then you can tweak from there given all the other factors mentioned by Repechage.

The other "old" adage for proper saddle height was to sit on the bike up next to a wall, or on a trainer, and place your heel on the pedal spindle. If you sport toe clips, flip the pedal over. With your leg at the bottom of the stroke, your leg should "just" straighten.
Without your hips having to rock back and forth at all.

Just another saddle height general guide. But doesn't say much about ideal frame size. As was said by many, most people can ride several different size frames. I have a 60, a 61, a 62 and a 63 cm. The 63 is a bit to big for me, but I can ride it, and I like it. I'm sure a "modern" frame fit guru would probably have me on a 57 or 58, I'm guessing.

Velognome 

Is crank length is a factor or saddle height and seatpost setback...discuss

ThermionicScott 

Ah... I retract my snark from earlier. Thought you were talking about your pants inseam.

RobbieTunes

Size is always relative. What we say matters, but not much; we are all pretty different.

5'6, measured a bunch of times.
30" inseam on trousers, no big deal.
29" saddle to BB measurement is about right for me, maybe 28.75" since I want to spin more.
I suppose I have long legs and long arms for my size, and a short torso.

54 cm's have generally been too small and made my back hurt, with stems from 90mm to 120mm. Otherwise, I'd still have a Centurion Prestige.

I ride 56cm C&V style steel frames with 75-90mm stems, preferring about an 80mm, all quill. Cinelli 64-42 bars, setback seatpost.

My 10-year old carbon bike is a 56cm, using an 80mm stem, short/shallow carbon bars, setback seatpost.
My modern steel bike is a "Medium," using a 90mm stem, -17 degrees, and a zero-setback seatpost.

My only 54cm c&V style bike uses a 100 mm stem, setback seatpost, and Cinelli stem/64-42 bars.
I like it, but would not want to do 100 miles on it.

I've had a 52cm Marin Portofino fit just fine, big slope on the TT.
I've also had a 52cm Felt F70 feel like it was a 48cm.
I've ridden a pair of 59cm Centurion Ironman Carbon bikes, because that model is hard to find in any size.
I've also ridden 58cm bikes far more successfully than 54cm bikes.
Almost any bike can be ridden, but to do it right, the bike must fit like clothes, you "wear it."

It took a while to find what fit, and now I stick to it.
Too many "hope it fits" bikes have come and gone, that's fairly expensive water under the bridge.
For different types of riding, I try different fits. My cross bike will have a shorter stem. I need the control over the bar.

My suggestion is to pick your range, find what fits in that range, and if you can go 50 miles comfortably, but 100 miles not, a minor adjustment will likely work.

I'm not sure why, but when my friend brings over his new Look or Pinarello Dogma, it seems to fit just fine around the block.

kurtp13

I'm 5'10" with a 30" inseam and 54 is just about right. I don't feel too stretched out usually. But it seems to be different depending on the brand.