Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    32
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Steel and Aluminum Redux and sizing

    Hi, I am 6'4'' 280 lb (down from 310 up from 260 heading to 220.... and a bit of a newbie) and am looking to replace my Jamis Aragon with a CX bike that will better suit my riding habits. I have looked at the aluminum Cannondales, Kona's and Brodies and the steel Surly and Soma's. I have been favouring the Surly of Soma b/c I have been impressed by the LBSs that have carried them and like that they are not so tubey looking. I have about 1200 CAD to spend (1000 USD)

    My question is will there be too much flex in the steel while climbing or not?

    I also get the feeling that LBSs are pushing me at 58 size bikes b/c that is what they happen to have and it can be made to fit. I would prefer having the biggest bike I can ride and not have to have seat stem fully extended...is this reasonable thinking.

    Really appreciate some perspectives. Thanks

  2. #2
    Perma-clyde Alox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    My Bikes
    '05 Stumpy FSR 120, REK TEK Blitzkreig (Commuter)
    Posts
    198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What exactly are your 'riding habits'? It might help shed some light on the preferred choice of frame material. Do you spin, or are you a big-gear masher? Are you going to do mostly smooth road riding, or will you take a CX bike into the rough?

    You may find that a 58cm is big enough for a Cx bike if it has a higher BB and you want a little more clearance between your nutz and the top tube. I'm 6 foot 4 with a 35 inch inseam, and my own commuting experience has demonstrated that this is the sort of thing that is better to have and not need, then need and not have - so long as the bike fits elsewhere, like in the top tube length. Within reason. Shorter tubes will also make for a stiffer frame.
    Nowadays I've got me two good wheels - and I'll seek refuge in aluminum and steel;
    Takes me out there for just a little while, and the years fall away with every mile...
    -Steve Earle, "The Other Kind"

  3. #3
    Senior Member Hambone's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bootiful Brooklyn, NY
    My Bikes
    GT Edge for the road/Specialized Hopper (well the frame and the bb, everything else is new) for the dirt
    Posts
    2,024
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Vespa
    Hi, I am 6'4'' 280 lb (down from 310 up from 260 heading to 220.... and a bit of a newbie) and am looking to replace my Jamis Aragon with a CX bike that will better suit my riding habits. I have looked at the aluminum Cannondales, Kona's and Brodies and the steel Surly and Soma's. I have been favouring the Surly of Soma b/c I have been impressed by the LBSs that have carried them and like that they are not so tubey looking. I have about 1200 CAD to spend (1000 USD)

    My question is will there be too much flex in the steel while climbing or not?

    I also get the feeling that LBSs are pushing me at 58 size bikes b/c that is what they happen to have and it can be made to fit. I would prefer having the biggest bike I can ride and not have to have seat stem fully extended...is this reasonable thinking.

    Really appreciate some perspectives. Thanks
    serious riders always try and get the smallest frame they can ride comfortably. (everything else being equal, smaller frame is lighter and stiffer)

    If you were going to be doing serious downhill riding/jumping/etc or something where bending the seatost was a concern this could be a logical decision but in all honesty if you are riding like that then the standover clearance issue should be a bigger concern!

    Can you ride both and see which you like better?
    ***************
    On the steel vs alum thing:

    I bought my current road bike because I knew that I wanted something stiffer than the cromoly MTB I had ridden in the dirt for years. I got the stiffest alum fram I could find.

    On the road, the stiffness seems to equal more pain in the seat/nether region.
    Inside me is a thin man dying to get out.
    (He is kept comfortable by some pie, a half case of Bud, two cheese-dogs and a big screen Sony.)

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    32
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for replies. I ride mostly well packed trail and roads. I would like the option of exploring rougher terrain. The roads are very hilly. I endeavour to spin vice mashing

    I have a 36 inch inseam and have no trouble standing over a 62 cm CX frame with some clearance. My Jamis is 20.5'' and it fits but I think would rather have a somewhat larger frame than have the seat post fully extended...the whole geometry of the bike seems wacked with seat post extended to its maximum. How much standover is desireable? Are the 62's made for tallish freaks? Maybe a 60 will do.

    The Surlys and Soma's are not available built so would have to be ordered so I cannot ride to compare.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Hambone's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bootiful Brooklyn, NY
    My Bikes
    GT Edge for the road/Specialized Hopper (well the frame and the bb, everything else is new) for the dirt
    Posts
    2,024
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Vespa
    Thanks for replies. I ride mostly well packed trail and roads. I would like the option of exploring rougher terrain. The roads are very hilly. I endeavour to spin vice mashing

    I have a 36 inch inseam and have no trouble standing over a 62 cm CX frame with some clearance. My Jamis is 20.5'' and it fits but I think would rather have a somewhat larger frame than have the seat post fully extended...the whole geometry of the bike seems wacked with seat post extended to its maximum. How much standover is desireable? Are the 62's made for tallish freaks? Maybe a 60 will do.

    The Surlys and Soma's are not available built so would have to be ordered so I cannot ride to compare.
    first and foremost, ride them. Get past the sexy/new distraction as quickly as you can and just focus on which is most comfortable. Switch back and forth on the sizes if you can.
    Inside me is a thin man dying to get out.
    (He is kept comfortable by some pie, a half case of Bud, two cheese-dogs and a big screen Sony.)

  6. #6
    Senior Member adrien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    My Bikes
    Specialized Rockhopper comp, Kona Kapu, Ira Ryan custom road bike, Ira Ryan custom fixed gear
    Posts
    1,041
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    A number of considerations here, especially with CX bikes...

    They're not all built the same on two diminsions. First, some have higher bottom brackets (as in the lowest part of the frame is higher off the ground than others). This means that one company's 58 will have a higher stand-over than another's. Second, some have more compact "cockpits" than others -- a key dimension of fit is the "stretch" that you have to reach the bars from the seat. This tends to be lesser in CX bikes to allow for a more upright riding position. In some, it's very pronounced, in others, less so.

    A bigger frame will allow you to have the bars higher (assuming equal stem length) relative to the seat than a smaller frame. Don't know if this matters to you.

    Finally, frame material matters less in some respects than fork material.

    I'm 6'3, about 230, and considered all these aspects. I used to ride a 62 road bike that was fine, but right at the edge of comfort for me, and i could feel the steel frame flexing from time to time. I ended up with a 58 JTS, and love it.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Northern Nevada
    Posts
    3,749
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I almost bought a Surly a couple of years ago, and I'd still like to have one, but the 58 was FAR too short for me at 6'4". I would have had a foot or more of seatpost poking out, and I wasn't confident a post that long would survive with 250 pounds on the saddle.
    I've weighed as much as 270 (coming down through 235 now), and I don't think 280-and-falling is going to be a problem for most of the frames you mentioned. You'll need stout wheels (36-spoke, IMO, and not one less) and fatter tires than the whippets ride, but the frame should be OK. But I ride a 64 to 66cm frame, and I can't see a 58 working for you.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    987
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    frame sizing

    Quote Originally Posted by Vespa
    Hi, I am 6'4'' 280 lb (down from 310 up from 260 heading to 220.... and a bit of a newbie) and am looking to replace my Jamis Aragon with a CX bike that will better suit my riding habits. I have looked at the aluminum Cannondales, Kona's and Brodies and the steel Surly and Soma's. I have been favouring the Surly of Soma b/c I have been impressed by the LBSs that have carried them and like that they are not so tubey looking. I have about 1200 CAD to spend (1000 USD)

    My question is will there be too much flex in the steel while climbing or not?

    I also get the feeling that LBSs are pushing me at 58 size bikes b/c that is what they happen to have and it can be made to fit. I would prefer having the biggest bike I can ride and not have to have seat stem fully extended...is this reasonable thinking.

    Really appreciate some perspectives. Thanks
    At 6'4" you need at least a 62cm or so and not a 58cm! For a road bike, I ride a 57-59cm and I am only 5'11". My pubic bone to floor measurment is 87cm and I imagine yours would be more. For a MTB frame you do need more clearance for your junk but not so much that you have to jack the seatpost up a mile. This will only cramp you, due to a too short top tube and also the seatpost will flex too much and eventually crack. Ignore the advice to get as small a frame as possible, thats a pipe dream, that they are significantly lighter and stiffer!
    Smart builders allow for higher weights on larger frames and most will substitute heavier guage tubing to account for more flex in longer tubing. The fact that some riders have had flex problems with larger frames is simply that their body weight, exceeded the frames intended rider weight. A lightly constructed road bike is not made for 300 pounders, in spite of increased guage tubing on the larger sized frames. What you need is a custom made frame for tall and heavy riders! The Surly Long Haul Trucker is a great production frame in the larger size and I recently met one bigger rider that rides a 62cm and he seemed to like his. If you need higher ground clearance, the Crosscheck is made specifically that way, although I am not sure how large it is made. You are correct in not buying a 58cm and your bike shop can't make it fit you correctly, without some major compromises, especially at your weight. Tall skinny guys can get away with alot more than us big dudes. Unfortunately, there aren't alot of choices avaliable to the tall and heavy rider unless you go custom and have a frame built for you. In my case, I need higher bar height due to shorter reach and what looks right (level saddle to bar height) doesn't work for me. I need the bars one inch higher or I have too much weight on my hands and I get numb hands. I'm more leg for my height, so I ride a shorter top tubed, longer seat tube frame, with a high stem height. This combo feels right to me but doesn't look right to most riders looking at bike catalogs, with the bars three inches below the saddle height. That "look" might be fine for some young, flyweight racer but its uncomfortable for any ride longer than 5 miles and isn't neccessary if you value your lower back, hands and neck! Just my opinions, here are my bikes:
    http://www.myspace.com/eccentriccyclistcharlie

  9. #9
    Perma-clyde Alox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    My Bikes
    '05 Stumpy FSR 120, REK TEK Blitzkreig (Commuter)
    Posts
    198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by charles vail
    At 6'4" you need at least a 62cm or so and not a 58cm! For a road bike, I ride a 57-59cm and I am only 5'11". My pubic bone to floor measurment is 87cm and I imagine yours would be more. For a MTB frame you do need more clearance for your junk but not so much that you have to jack the seatpost up a mile. This will only cramp you, due to a too short top tube and also the seatpost will flex too much and eventually crack. Ignore the advice to get as small a frame as possible, thats a pipe dream, that they are significantly lighter and stiffer!

    Sorry Charlie, I don't agree. You wrote:
    Smart builders allow for higher weights on larger frames and most will substitute heavier guage tubing to account for more flex in longer tubing.

    How often has anyone accused mass-market (i.e.: the vast majority of) bike producers of being 'smart builders'? If they were, forums like this one would not exist. Swapping tubes for larger frames on the basis of rider weight? Not likely if every builder thinks anyone taller than 1.9 m (6 foot 3) is built like Indurain. Can you name any mass-producers that swap tubes to support heaver riders? If I can avoid the price of going custom, I'd really like to know who they are!
    The fact that some riders have had flex problems with larger frames is simply that their body weight, exceeded the frames intended rider weight.

    That's a cop-out and an affront to the laws of physics. A longer tube will flex more than a short one when a load is applied, all other things being equal. This is the principle of the lever. On a traditional bicycle frame, the 'lever' that flexes the most is the seat tube.

    A lightly constructed road bike is not made for 300 pounders, in spite of increased guage tubing on the larger sized frames. What you need is a custom made frame for tall and heavy riders!

    I don't think that the OP is prepared to spend custom-frame prices - that's why he posted here in the first place. CAD$1200 might get you a custom frame, but he'll still have to hang parts on it, and that can be up to $1000 more.

    The Surly Long Haul Trucker is a great production frame in the larger size and I recently met one bigger rider that rides a 62cm and he seemed to like his. If you need higher ground clearance, the Crosscheck is made specifically that way, although I am not sure how large it is made. You are correct in not buying a 58cm and your bike shop can't make it fit you correctly, without some major compromises, especially at your weight. Tall skinny guys can get away with alot more than us big dudes. Unfortunately, there aren't alot of choices avaliable to the tall and heavy rider unless you go custom and have a frame built for you. In my case, I need higher bar height due to shorter reach and what looks right (level saddle to bar height) doesn't work for me. I need the bars one inch higher or I have too much weight on my hands and I get numb hands. I'm more leg for my height, so I ride a shorter top tubed, longer seat tube frame, with a high stem height.

    Based on your statements, you seem to be a special case, and require the type of unique set-up that makes 'custom' a good choice. However, a good LBS can go a long way toward fitting a bike to its rider, depending if the rider is long of leg, long in the torso (as I am), has varying degrees of flexibility, or special orthortic needs. In such cases, it may be more reasonable to purchase a stock frame on the basis of a measurement like top tube length (reach), instead of seat-tube length. My point is that it may be possible for the OP to get a bike that meets his needs by working with someone who knows what they're doing to set up a stock frame and swap out stems and seatposts, to get an efficient and comfortable fit than going right to a full-custom ride.

    This combo feels right to me but doesn't look right to most riders looking at bike catalogs, with the bars three inches below the saddle height. That "look" might be fine for some young, flyweight racer but its uncomfortable for any ride longer than 5 miles and isn't neccessary if you value your lower back, hands and neck!

    Absolutely right (to the OP): Take the time to work with a shop that will fit you right, and not insist that your profile be identical to that of a photo of a lightweight whipper-snapper pulled out of a magazine.

    Just my opinions, here are my bikes:
    http://www.myspace.com/eccentriccyclistcharlie
    A-lox
    Nowadays I've got me two good wheels - and I'll seek refuge in aluminum and steel;
    Takes me out there for just a little while, and the years fall away with every mile...
    -Steve Earle, "The Other Kind"

  10. #10
    Senior Member Deanster04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Boulder, Colorado
    My Bikes
    Cinelli Supercoursa 69, Ritchey Breakaway Cross, Mondonico Diamond Extra 05, Coors Light Greg Lemond (built by Scapin) 88, Scapin MTB, Stumpjumper 83, Specialized Stumpjumper M4, Lemond Poprad 2001
    Posts
    1,366
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There are a couple of other steel framed bikes that you should look at. A Lemond Poprad and a Gunnar cross check. And the people talking about a 62cm are more in the ball park than a 58cm. If you are planning on buying a bike it is worth going to a shop with a fitcycle or someone who is truly an expert at fitting bikes. If you buy the wrong frame size you are more likely to get frustrated and hang the bike on a hook in the garage where it will collect dust for the next several years. Bike Fit Is Critical.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    987
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    smart builders

    Quote Originally Posted by Alox
    A-lox
    Well, I certainly wasn't referring to most production bike companies as smart builders, instead I was just stating (smart builders) meaning, custom frame builders. Large companies are in fact smart builders and they could make a heavier built bike but most large companies are constrained within certain limits in order to be profitable and sell within a certain price point to be competitive.

    Of course a long tube flexes more than a short one and in larger frames (over 58 cm) some builders do use, say a .9/.6/.9 guage rather than a .8/.5/.8 guage. I'm talking steel here, of course. Unfortunately for the really heavy rider, over 250-275 pounds even these guages sometimes need to be beefed up for long term use. A small frame size will be slightly stiffer but accounting for the reduced wall thickness it would then be about the same. We are talking only 6cm difference in a tube so there isn't a whole lot of difference in flex if the tube gauge is thicker, probably none.

    Our poster, Vespa cannot IMHO get a good fit on a 58cm bike no matter what bike shop is doing the work without some major compromises. What he needs at 6'4" and 280 pounds is a larger frame with thicker wall tubes, preferably steel.

    The Surly line of production bikes are built with heavier guage tubes at least in the crosscheck and Long Haul Trucker frames since in the case of the Long Haul it is made to carry a load plus a rider and in our posters case he is the load. The Surly would be a better choice if he wants to save money and have as durable and stiff a frame as he can buy for a reasonable price. With a proper frame size maybe 62 cm and a correct stem length he could be fit up quite comfortably.

    Ultimately a custom frame is a best solution for a tall heavy rider but Surly is unique in this case, since they do make a bike with a larger frame size thats made to carry a heavy weight (rider and luggage or just rider)!!! Touring style bikes are not all that common these days and I can think of only a few production models besides Surly, Fuji, Trek 520, Novara (REI) and Jamis, I believe makes a steel frame that is fairly stout. Bianchi's Volpe is steel but I am not sure of how large their frames are.

    I think Vespa wanted a larger frame to keep the seat post from sticking so far out of the seat tube and he is correct to assume that his lbs is trying to force fit him into a 58cm because they have one. Unless he wants a seat post a mile high and a stem hanging way over the front wheel and doesn't value his hands or his lower back, he won't like the fit on a 58 cm. One additional problem with modern threadless stems is the fact that when trying to fit taller riders on smaller frames the steer tube is often precut and it makes it difficult to get the bars high enough, without resorting to steer tube additions, along with high rise stems. This makes for a cluttered setup and by getting a correct frame size, can be avoided.

    My own bikes are stock 1980's frames with different stems, so, yes, it is possible to get a fit on a stock frame provided the frame is close to correct, in the beginning. In my case, I own a 55cm frame that is too small and while I can ride it, I am not as comfortable, especialy on long rides, in spite of my efforts to change out to a different stem.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    32
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for the input everyone.

    I am a bit short of leg so I think a 60 in Surly Cross Check or 59 in Poprad will do it. It seems my price range will have tocome up to accomodate either.. to about 1600.00 CAD to get Surly built up with 105's or a stock Poprad w/o discs if I can find it and 2K with discs (and then its a Cross Check).

    I very leery of carbon fork on Poprad with discs and wonder if I am just too big for the Lemond weight wise no matter how it is built?

  13. #13
    Senior Member adrien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    My Bikes
    Specialized Rockhopper comp, Kona Kapu, Ira Ryan custom road bike, Ira Ryan custom fixed gear
    Posts
    1,041
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hmmm...

    I love my JTS, which is a 58. Seat post is maybe 3-5 inches off the frame, and is maybe 1 inch above the handlebars.

    I'm 6'3 and change.

    It fits. It doesn't hurt my back or my hands. 60 would be in danger of hurting the boys during quick dismounts.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    987
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    check out....

    Quote Originally Posted by Vespa
    Thanks for the input everyone.

    I am a bit short of leg so I think a 60 in Surly Cross Check or 59 in Poprad will do it. It seems my price range will have tocome up to accomodate either.. to about 1600.00 CAD to get Surly built up with 105's or a stock Poprad w/o discs if I can find it and 2K with discs (and then its a Cross Check).

    I very leery of carbon fork on Poprad with discs and wonder if I am just too big for the Lemond weight wise no matter how it is built?
    Look at Rivbike.com and read about their ideas on bike fit for road bikes. You might change your mind and go with a 62 cm Crosscheck or their LHT which I believe is a better designed frame. Basically its a poor mans Rivendell Atlantis IMHO.

  15. #15
    Senior Member adrien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    My Bikes
    Specialized Rockhopper comp, Kona Kapu, Ira Ryan custom road bike, Ira Ryan custom fixed gear
    Posts
    1,041
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by adrien
    Hmmm...

    I love my JTS, which is a 58. Seat post is maybe 3-5 inches off the frame, and is maybe 1 inch above the handlebars.

    I'm 6'3 and change.

    It fits. It doesn't hurt my back or my hands. 60 would be in danger of hurting the boys during quick dismounts.

    Ok, so I'm weird this way and I measured. In inches...my inseam is a 33 with mtb shoes. Standing over the bike, I've got about 1.5 inches or 4cm clearance with my thighs against the bar, which means a 60 would be pushing it and a 62 would be in ouch mode. Seat is 5 1/2 inces up from the frame, bars rise 4.5 inches. So, adjusted to me, bars and seat on a 60 would be about the same height, with the stand over in danger zone on anything uneven, which happens all the time on a cross bike (assuming you don't just ride roads). BTW, my sleeve is a 37.

    Moral of the story is to try and always do a test ride.

  16. #16
    Senior Member Hambone's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bootiful Brooklyn, NY
    My Bikes
    GT Edge for the road/Specialized Hopper (well the frame and the bb, everything else is new) for the dirt
    Posts
    2,024
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    the fit calculators say measure bare foot. (Not gonna make a big difference but...)
    Inside me is a thin man dying to get out.
    (He is kept comfortable by some pie, a half case of Bud, two cheese-dogs and a big screen Sony.)

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brazos River valley, south central TX
    My Bikes
    2005 Surly LHT; 2006 Surly CrossCheck with Extracycle; 1987 Schwinn World Sport as urban cruiser
    Posts
    1,298
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by charles vail
    At 6'4" you need at least a 62cm or so and not a 58cm! ...The Surly Long Haul Trucker is a great production frame in the larger size and I recently met one bigger rider that rides a 62cm and he seemed to like his. If you need higher ground clearance, the Crosscheck is made specifically that way, although I am not sure how large it is made.
    Last November I was sized for a new bike and needed a 68 cm. I am 6'-4"+ and weigh 220 pounds. 100% of my riding these days is on country roads w/ asphalt, potholes, some gravel washboards, etc. I have a steel MTB for off-road but haven't done much in last 2 years. Since I couldn't afford a $ 3000 custom bike in my size and there seemed to be no production frames larger than a 56 or 59 cm, I went with a Surly LHT 62-cm frame. Fork clearance allows up to a 700 x 40 tire but I ride 700 x 32's or 28's.

    My LBS put all the components on it (I can post a listing if interested or by PM) and I ride it 50+ miles per week as a commuter & recreational rider. To get handlebars above seat height, I have a stem extension that is raised to its limit. The seat post has about 5-6" showing. I've been very pleased with the LHT, its stiffness under my weight but good road shock absorption, lack of shimmy on downhills, etc. Since I ride over railroad tracks, around potholes, etc. I'm pretty conscious of the ride quality and have no complaints about that or the handling at all. In fact, I've been surprised at the stability when having to bump across gravel patches at speed when traffic required me to hold my line rather than ride around rough spots.

    As an alternative between a bike that couldn't be sized 'up' to fit me and a custom frame, it has been worth my investment (at this point, I've probably got around $ 1600 into it including racks, panniers, fenders, lights, etc.). Reasonable components that serve well and I've not had any hesitation to pimping it out since I expect the bike to serve me for years. It's the first time I've had a bike that I felt I could take anywhere and pretty much ride any kind of road or trail (except high class single-track, of course).

    That's my 2 cents, for what it's worth.
    centexwoody
    They're beautiful handsome machines that translate energy into joy.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    32
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have found the best option but I think it is more than I can afford but I will offer it up for others....

    Our local Marinoni dealer has the Fango - in steel frame /carbon fork - basically made to measure for around 895 for frameset and 1795 complete (all prices Canadian so reduce by ~15%) + custom paint colour included. Comes in under 18 pounds. And they will beef it up for my weight.

    http://www.marinoni.qc.ca/Bikes/Touring/Fango.htm

    How I will probably go is Cross Check 62 bulit up by LBS using parts lying around for 1299 CAD and dress it up as bits fall off. I really want a steel fork and the weight of the bike is not at top of list of problems.

    What I also liked was new KHS cyclo cross at 1249 CAD AL/Carbon but you have all turned me of Al.

    I have really appreciated all the input

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    987
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    inseam or.......

    Quote Originally Posted by adrien
    Ok, so I'm weird this way and I measured. In inches...my inseam is a 33 with mtb shoes. Standing over the bike, I've got about 1.5 inches or 4cm clearance with my thighs against the bar, which means a 60 would be pushing it and a 62 would be in ouch mode. Seat is 5 1/2 inces up from the frame, bars rise 4.5 inches. So, adjusted to me, bars and seat on a 60 would be about the same height, with the stand over in danger zone on anything uneven, which happens all the time on a cross bike (assuming you don't just ride roads). BTW, my sleeve is a 37.

    Moral of the story is to try and always do a test ride.
    I made the mistake of using my inseam measurement and bought a 55cm frame only to find it was on the small side for me for road use. I now ride a 59cm and with a taller stem a 57cm. What you need to measure is the distance to your pubic bone from the floor in your bare feet pedal width apart. Use a tape measure and a slim 1/2" book and put the tape end between the pages and pull up till you hit bone. Do this three times and take the longest measurement. Have someone else read the tape off the floor. If you need further explanation go to Rivendells web site and read their bike fit info. Once you have this measurement you can calculate your frame size. As far as standover is concerned you shouldn't be so concerned about "junk" contact as much (they move) as bottoming out on your pubic bone unless the bike will be used often for off road stuff. For a road bike, 1 inch or a couple of centimeters is enough. Don't forget, once you put your preffered shoes on, you effectively raise your standover by the additional measurement, giving you more room. The goal behind measuring this way is to get the option of raising the bars to level with or slighty above saddle height. This may not be as important for a young flexible rider but as you age, if you are not particularly flexible, or if you have numbing problems with either hands, crotch, or cramped neck, the ability to raise the bars is a welcome godsend. Stem length can then be adjusted for saddle to bar distance easily and lowering the bar can easily be accomplished. Buying too small a frame limits you, especially for a bike used for long rides where comfort is king.
    One other point is that if you are more torso than leg, buying too small a frame shortens the top tube and cramps you. A long stem can be used but this could put you too far over the front wheel. Starting with a larger frame reduces this affect and as long as you can stand over the frame in your shoes with enough room to not hit your pelvic bone you should be alright. On extemely uneaven ground for an actual cross bike you may need more clearance. Most bikes these days have a downward angled top tube so this should not be a problem. Just make sure you aren't exaggerating the contact with the "gents" as opposed to actually crushing them while standing on your tippy toes and nearly falling over due to extreme pain.

  20. #20
    Senior Member adrien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    My Bikes
    Specialized Rockhopper comp, Kona Kapu, Ira Ryan custom road bike, Ira Ryan custom fixed gear
    Posts
    1,041
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wow, that's a lot of info.

    I know what I have fits well, and the cockpit does not feel cramped. I also know that a top tube any higher would make me nervous. I'm not as stretched as I could be, but I came form and MTB and it feels like a good compromise. I don't think i made a mistake.

    FWIW, I'm betting that the MTB shoes, with feet closer together, and inseam number leads to a measurement that's close to the pubic bone (I presume that's the cocyx?) to the floor in bare feet.

    Finally -- the bike looks right -- seat is not against the frame, nor crazy high. It's about an inch above the bars.

    I guess my point here is that 58 can fit fine up to fairly big folks, assuming that the TT feels right. And it guess I've got shorter legs than I thought.

    M

  21. #21
    Senior Member adrien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    My Bikes
    Specialized Rockhopper comp, Kona Kapu, Ira Ryan custom road bike, Ira Ryan custom fixed gear
    Posts
    1,041
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ok, wait...when you say bone, do you mean what the chamois rests against in bike shorts, once boys moved out of the way? If so, that is how i measured...

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    987
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    bone

    Quote Originally Posted by adrien
    ok, wait...when you say bone, do you mean what the chamois rests against in bike shorts, once boys moved out of the way? If so, that is how i measured...
    The actual pelvis bones that you sit on as evidenced by the two dents seen on a Brooks leather saddle. They kind of come together right behind the "boys" and you know you've hit bone when you pull up on the book/tape for the measurment.

    In my case I am 5'11" and have a 87cm measurement in bare feet, floor to pubic bone. This gives me a 76.5-77cm saddle height (saddle level) to middle of bottom bracket axle. My frame size on a straight top tubed lugged frame and measuring from the bottom bracket axle to the top of the top tube is 59cm. This gives me adequate standover room in shoes when using 32mm wide tires that are I think 690mm in diameter. This allows me to get the bars 2cm higher than a frame that "should" fit me but doesn't allow a comfortable bar position. In your case it sounds like your frame is about right although you may need a longer stem perhaps a 12cm as I think 10cm is standard on a 58cm frame these days. I'm not a cross racer so I am not familiar with how high your bars need to be set or how stretched out you need to be.
    In your case, the lower bar height probably feels perfect as it sounds like you have a long reach and a long torso. Time will tell! Happy riding!
    Last edited by charles vail; 02-27-07 at 11:02 PM.

  23. #23
    Senior Member adrien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    My Bikes
    Specialized Rockhopper comp, Kona Kapu, Ira Ryan custom road bike, Ira Ryan custom fixed gear
    Posts
    1,041
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    looks good -- my pelvic bone is at about 86cm, using the book method. seat to BB is 77. My stem is 12cm, btw.

    Thanks

  24. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    32
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Bike Bought

    Surly Cross Check 62 in pearl green with low-end campy xeon 10 speed compact...should have by the end of next week. Very excited.

    Thanks for all the free help!

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    987
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    photos

    Vespa....When you get it, post some photos including some with you on the bike. I'd be interested to see what you think about the ride qualities, fit and general review of the bike.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •