Bike fit math revisited
12-29-07, 06:41 AM
#1
Boomer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,214
Bikes: Diamondback Clarity II frame homebuilt.
Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16098 Post(s)
Liked 1,457 Times
in
1,064 Posts
Bike fit math revisited
While reading an article on bike fit by Matt Russ (TriSports.com) I came up with what was to me a new set of calculations to point toward proper bicycle size.
1. The traditional inseam measurement is done standing against the wall with a book (large is better) pressed firmly up into the crotch and square against the wall. If you measure it in inches, convert to centimeters by multiplying by 2.54.
Edit: Removed note to wear shoes......do it barefoot.
2 Your height, also measured in centimeters.
3. First result: the approximate frame size for you is the inseam measurement multiplied by .67
4. Second result: Divide your height by your inseam.
If the ratio is greater than 2.2 a slightly longer frame is called for.
If the ratio is less than 2.0 a slightly shorter frame is called for.
My example. Inseam 79.5 cm........proper frame 53.3
Height 180.3............ratio...2.27 indicating a longer top tube or larger bike.
Edit: My example edited to reflect change in inseam measurement.
Observations: I have been buying 57cm frames and they were too long for me by about one size.
1. The traditional inseam measurement is done standing against the wall with a book (large is better) pressed firmly up into the crotch and square against the wall. If you measure it in inches, convert to centimeters by multiplying by 2.54.
Edit: Removed note to wear shoes......do it barefoot.
2 Your height, also measured in centimeters.
3. First result: the approximate frame size for you is the inseam measurement multiplied by .67
4. Second result: Divide your height by your inseam.
If the ratio is greater than 2.2 a slightly longer frame is called for.
If the ratio is less than 2.0 a slightly shorter frame is called for.
My example. Inseam 79.5 cm........proper frame 53.3
Height 180.3............ratio...2.27 indicating a longer top tube or larger bike.
Edit: My example edited to reflect change in inseam measurement.
Observations: I have been buying 57cm frames and they were too long for me by about one size.
Last edited by maddmaxx; 12-29-07 at 10:49 AM.
12-29-07, 06:49 AM
#2
Time for a change.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: 6 miles inland from the coast of Sussex, in the South East of England
Posts: 19,913
Bikes: Dale MT2000. Bianchi FS920 Kona Explosif. Giant TCR C. Boreas Ignis. Pinarello Fp Uno.
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
4 Posts
Easier is sit on the Bu**er and see if it is comfortable. 
I am one of the NON standard sizes. Short legs for height and that loss of leg length is in the thighs. So I normally go for a shorter top tube than required and adjust out with a longer seat post. Then the stem length has changed over the years to accomodate an aching back.
And does trisports make any allowance for bike colour. Gold bikes require that you have a longer stretched out position for the extra speed that comes from this colour wheras you can comfortably get an upright position on a white bike as it will never get up to the critical speed where aerodynamics will play a part.
I am one of the NON standard sizes. Short legs for height and that loss of leg length is in the thighs. So I normally go for a shorter top tube than required and adjust out with a longer seat post. Then the stem length has changed over the years to accomodate an aching back.
And does trisports make any allowance for bike colour. Gold bikes require that you have a longer stretched out position for the extra speed that comes from this colour wheras you can comfortably get an upright position on a white bike as it will never get up to the critical speed where aerodynamics will play a part.
__________________
How long was I in the army? Five foot seven.
Spike Milligan
How long was I in the army? Five foot seven.
Spike Milligan
12-29-07, 06:51 AM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,874
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1856 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
While reading an article on bike fit by Matt Russ (TriSports.com) I came up with what was to me a new set of calculations to point toward proper bicycle size.
1. The traditional inseam measurement is done standing against the wall with a book (large is better) pressed firmly up into the crotch and square against the wall. (wear your bike shoes) If you measure it in inches, convert to centimeters by multiplying by 2.54.
2 Your height, also measured in centimeters.
3. First result: the approximate frame size for you is the inseam measurement multiplied by .67
4. Second result: Divide your height by your inseam.
If the ratio is greater than 2.2 a slightly longer frame is called for.
If the ratio is less than 2.0 a slightly shorter frame is called for.
My example. Inseam 81.3 cm........proper frame 54.5
Height 180.3............ratio...2.22 indicating a longer top tube or larger bike.
Observations: my inseam is longer than I thought while wearing bike shoes. M height is less than I thought because I am older.
I have been buying 57cm frames and they were probably too long for me but not more than 1 size too large.
1. The traditional inseam measurement is done standing against the wall with a book (large is better) pressed firmly up into the crotch and square against the wall. (wear your bike shoes) If you measure it in inches, convert to centimeters by multiplying by 2.54.
2 Your height, also measured in centimeters.
3. First result: the approximate frame size for you is the inseam measurement multiplied by .67
4. Second result: Divide your height by your inseam.
If the ratio is greater than 2.2 a slightly longer frame is called for.
If the ratio is less than 2.0 a slightly shorter frame is called for.
My example. Inseam 81.3 cm........proper frame 54.5
Height 180.3............ratio...2.22 indicating a longer top tube or larger bike.
Observations: my inseam is longer than I thought while wearing bike shoes. M height is less than I thought because I am older.
I have been buying 57cm frames and they were probably too long for me but not more than 1 size too large.Interesting stuff!
Our inseams are about the same, mine perhaps a bit more since I've done barefoot measurements. You are coming up with a larger frame than I usually calc for myself by about 2 cm, but it's a sizing I've wanted to try.
Arnie Baker wrote an E-book on bike fitting and sizing (available at RoadBikeForums I think?) where he also uses this 2.2 factor to assess body proportions and to recommend the need for a non-standard TT.
Road Fan
12-29-07, 06:59 AM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,874
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1856 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
Do you have a link to the actual article?
12-29-07, 07:01 AM
#5
Violin guitar mandolin
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Friendsville, TN, USA
Posts: 1,171
Bikes: Wilier Thor, Fuji Professional, LeMond Wayzata
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Age. Style. Number fits don't accommodate. Use.
I have an upright bike and a low long bar bike. Both fit. Wouldn't think from looking at them that the same person rides them. Both comfortable. One for loafing to work. Another for cranking.
I have an upright bike and a low long bar bike. Both fit. Wouldn't think from looking at them that the same person rides them. Both comfortable. One for loafing to work. Another for cranking.
12-29-07, 07:20 AM
#6
Boomer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,214
Bikes: Diamondback Clarity II frame homebuilt.
Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16098 Post(s)
Liked 1,457 Times
in
1,064 Posts
https://www.trinewbies.com/category.asp?catID=5
Many articles here. This is an assosciated site to trisports.com.
Many articles here. This is an assosciated site to trisports.com.
12-29-07, 08:12 AM
#7
I need more cowbell.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 8,182
Bikes: 2015 Specialized Sirrus Elite
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
__________________
2015 Sirrus Elite
Proud member of the original Club Tombay
2015 Sirrus Elite
Proud member of the original Club Tombay
12-29-07, 10:12 AM
#8
just keep riding
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Milledgeville, Georgia
Posts: 13,560
Bikes: 2018 Black Mountain Cycles MCD,2017 Advocate Cycles Seldom Seen Drop Bar, 2017 Niner Jet 9 Alloy, 2015 Zukas custom road, 2003 KHS Milano Tandem, 1986 Nishiki Cadence rigid MTB, 1980ish Fuji S-12S
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 173 Post(s)
Liked 33 Times
in
22 Posts
I have always heard to measure in bare feet, not in cycling shoes. My way puts me on a 58cm frame, which matches my seat-of-the-pants observations. Measuring while wearing shoes would put me on a size larger frame which would stretch me too far imho.
<edit> I just followed the link to the article and it also says to measure in bare feet.
<edit> I just followed the link to the article and it also says to measure in bare feet.
12-29-07, 10:16 AM
#9
Senior Member
I have always heard to measure in bare feet, not in cycling shoes. My way puts me on a 58cm frame, which matches my seat-of-the-pants observations. Measuring while wearing shoes would put me on a size larger frame which would stretch me too far imho.
<edit> I just followed the link to the article and it also says to measure in bare feet.
<edit> I just followed the link to the article and it also says to measure in bare feet.
__________________
George
George
12-29-07, 10:20 AM
#10
Boomer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,214
Bikes: Diamondback Clarity II frame homebuilt.
Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16098 Post(s)
Liked 1,457 Times
in
1,064 Posts
I have always heard to measure in bare feet, not in cycling shoes. My way puts me on a 58cm frame, which matches my seat-of-the-pants observations. Measuring while wearing shoes would put me on a size larger frame which would stretch me too far imho.
<edit> I just followed the link to the article and it also says to measure in bare feet.
<edit> I just followed the link to the article and it also says to measure in bare feet.
Last edited by maddmaxx; 12-29-07 at 10:49 AM.
12-29-07, 10:21 AM
#11
Time for a change.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: 6 miles inland from the coast of Sussex, in the South East of England
Posts: 19,913
Bikes: Dale MT2000. Bianchi FS920 Kona Explosif. Giant TCR C. Boreas Ignis. Pinarello Fp Uno.
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
4 Posts
12-29-07, 10:34 AM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 8,941
Mentioned: 130 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12190 Post(s)
Liked 1,495 Times
in
1,107 Posts
It all starts with the top tube. When you are bent over in the position you like, and your elbows are bent a bit... that's the distance you want. Knock off a bit for the stem and look at frames that size.
12-29-07, 10:57 AM
#14
Boomer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,214
Bikes: Diamondback Clarity II frame homebuilt.
Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16098 Post(s)
Liked 1,457 Times
in
1,064 Posts
Analog methods are nice but when they tell you something is very very wrong then it is nice to have an idea about where to start over.
As built, the White Rabbit was very uncomfortable when in the aero position. At first I thought...naaa...your just old and fa* (slightly larger than optimum) you'll get over it with training. Looking back I can say that BluesDawg and Hermes spotted the clues and gave good advice. The bike was torn down this morning and rebuilt with the aero bars at a higher level and slightly farther away using a collection of parts from around the lab. Much better.
The math helps when you are banging around and cant find the bread crumbs.
Just to make my day worse, I violated rule 7.....Don't wrap your bars untill you know that all is right.
As built, the White Rabbit was very uncomfortable when in the aero position. At first I thought...naaa...your just old and fa* (slightly larger than optimum) you'll get over it with training. Looking back I can say that BluesDawg and Hermes spotted the clues and gave good advice. The bike was torn down this morning and rebuilt with the aero bars at a higher level and slightly farther away using a collection of parts from around the lab. Much better.
The math helps when you are banging around and cant find the bread crumbs.
Just to make my day worse, I violated rule 7.....Don't wrap your bars untill you know that all is right.
12-29-07, 02:14 PM
#15
His Brain is Gone!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Paoli, Wisconsin
Posts: 9,979
Bikes: RANS Stratus, Bridgestone CB-1, Trek 7600, Sun EZ-Rider AX, Fuji Absolute 1.0, Cayne Rambler 3
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
This is consistent with my experiences.
According to your algorithm I fit a 50cm bike but need a longer top tube (ratio 2.29). And when I've ridden road bikes, I find that a compact geometry (i.e. lower standover but longer top tube) 52cm comes very close. On some bikes, even a 54cm was a reasonably decent fit.
According to your algorithm I fit a 50cm bike but need a longer top tube (ratio 2.29). And when I've ridden road bikes, I find that a compact geometry (i.e. lower standover but longer top tube) 52cm comes very close. On some bikes, even a 54cm was a reasonably decent fit.
__________________
"Too often I would hear men boast of the miles covered that day, rarely of what they had seen." Louis L'Amour
There are two types of road bikers: bikers who are faster than me, and me. Bruce Cameron - Denver Post
"Too often I would hear men boast of the miles covered that day, rarely of what they had seen." Louis L'Amour
There are two types of road bikers: bikers who are faster than me, and me. Bruce Cameron - Denver Post
12-29-07, 03:40 PM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: St Peters, Missouri
Posts: 30,225
Bikes: Catrike 559 I own some others but they don't get ridden very much.
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1572 Post(s)
Liked 643 Times
in
364 Posts
Well, I agree that you have a point but there's still this:
Imagine a room full of people doing toe touches. Some can flatten their palm against the floor, some can barely touch their knees. Now how does that stand-over height and total height formula adjust for those flexability differences? Getting the fit dialed in is still an art.
12-29-07, 04:42 PM
#17
Squirrel
12-29-07, 04:48 PM
#18
feros ferio
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: www.ci.encinitas.ca.us
Posts: 21,796
Bikes: 1959 Capo Modell Campagnolo; 1960 Capo Sieger (2); 1962 Carlton Franco Suisse; 1970 Peugeot UO-8; 1982 Bianchi Campione d'Italia; 1988 Schwinn Project KOM-10;
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1392 Post(s)
Liked 1,324 Times
in
836 Posts
Works like a charm for me:
height = 173 cm
inseam = 81 cm
recommended frame size = 54.5 cm (Bianchi & Capo = 55, Peugeot = 54)
ratio = 2.125, right in the middle of the range
height = 173 cm
inseam = 81 cm
recommended frame size = 54.5 cm (Bianchi & Capo = 55, Peugeot = 54)
ratio = 2.125, right in the middle of the range
__________________
"Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." --Theodore Roosevelt
Capo: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger (2), S/N 42624, 42597
Carlton: 1962 Franco Suisse, S/N K7911
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1982 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069
"Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." --Theodore Roosevelt
Capo: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger (2), S/N 42624, 42597
Carlton: 1962 Franco Suisse, S/N K7911
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1982 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069
12-29-07, 05:27 PM
#19
His Brain is Gone!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Paoli, Wisconsin
Posts: 9,979
Bikes: RANS Stratus, Bridgestone CB-1, Trek 7600, Sun EZ-Rider AX, Fuji Absolute 1.0, Cayne Rambler 3
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Wrapping your bars is regarded as making an appropriate sacrifice to the Bike God, who then blesses you with insight into what you forgot to do.
12-29-07, 08:13 PM
#20
Senior Member
Well, I agree that you have a point but there's still this:
Imagine a room full of people doing toe touches. Some can flatten their palm against the floor, some can barely touch their knees. Now how does that stand-over height and total height formula adjust for those flexability differences? Getting the fit dialed in is still an art.
Imagine a room full of people doing toe touches. Some can flatten their palm against the floor, some can barely touch their knees. Now how does that stand-over height and total height formula adjust for those flexability differences? Getting the fit dialed in is still an art.
12-29-07, 08:23 PM
#21
His Brain is Gone!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Paoli, Wisconsin
Posts: 9,979
Bikes: RANS Stratus, Bridgestone CB-1, Trek 7600, Sun EZ-Rider AX, Fuji Absolute 1.0, Cayne Rambler 3
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Would one's physical condition have a greater effect on the size of one's bike, or the configuration thereof? Or even the type of bike (i.e. drop bar road bike vs flat bar road bike vs hybrid)?
__________________
"Too often I would hear men boast of the miles covered that day, rarely of what they had seen." Louis L'Amour
There are two types of road bikers: bikers who are faster than me, and me. Bruce Cameron - Denver Post
"Too often I would hear men boast of the miles covered that day, rarely of what they had seen." Louis L'Amour
There are two types of road bikers: bikers who are faster than me, and me. Bruce Cameron - Denver Post
12-30-07, 08:45 AM
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: St Peters, Missouri
Posts: 30,225
Bikes: Catrike 559 I own some others but they don't get ridden very much.
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1572 Post(s)
Liked 643 Times
in
364 Posts
Something that has often amused me is that bicycles are traditionally sized by the length of the seat tube. Seat height is the easiest thing to readjust for.
12-30-07, 09:57 AM
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
+1 on the irony of labeling bikes by seat tube height...especially in a time of compact frames and seat tubes that are extended above the top tube. (Especially with long saddle posts so easily available.) Standover clearance is significant, but what is most critical is top tube length and overall reach. To a degree, geometry also: surprizing how a slack 72 degree head angle can pull those bars back.
I'm happy on a 57cm Romulus as well as a 53cm Bridgestone...both drop bar bikes with somewhat similar geometries. Certainly I have a Nitto Technomic on the Bridgestone...otherwise both have fit set-up adjusted the same...and certainly they handle a little differently.
Forumulas are a good place to start, but even then, personal dialing in is still required.
**Incidentally, the formula puts me on a 54.5...which is the size of my Specialized and which also makes me happy because I've adjusted with stem and set back seatpost.
The formula does not seem to account for my ungodly long, orangatang like arms. Or my short torso/longish legs. Hence, personal dialing.
I'm happy on a 57cm Romulus as well as a 53cm Bridgestone...both drop bar bikes with somewhat similar geometries. Certainly I have a Nitto Technomic on the Bridgestone...otherwise both have fit set-up adjusted the same...and certainly they handle a little differently.
Forumulas are a good place to start, but even then, personal dialing in is still required.
**Incidentally, the formula puts me on a 54.5...which is the size of my Specialized and which also makes me happy because I've adjusted with stem and set back seatpost.
The formula does not seem to account for my ungodly long, orangatang like arms. Or my short torso/longish legs. Hence, personal dialing.
Last edited by CrossChain; 12-30-07 at 11:00 AM.
12-30-07, 10:38 AM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,900
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Are you stating the frame size as top tube measurement or seatpost? It seems every maker has some different way of sizing their frames.
Did the calculation and my size is a 52.26 but the ratio says I should have a smaller frame, which is what I normally ride. How much smaller or larger by the ratio is the magic question.
Did the calculation and my size is a 52.26 but the ratio says I should have a smaller frame, which is what I normally ride. How much smaller or larger by the ratio is the magic question.
12-30-07, 11:44 AM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 5,124
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1581 Post(s)
Liked 1,189 Times
in
605 Posts
A couple of notes on these formulae:
-- on the .67 x inseam measurement, (a) i.s. is with barefeet, and (b) the multiplier gives you what was (BCG [before compact geometry]) the rough centre-to-top (of top tube, along the seat tube) sizing for a traditional frame. E.G. my inseam of 84 cms. x .67 puts me on a c-t frame of about 56, or about 54 centre-to-centre (56 c-c would be too big for me). With compact frames, you really have to size more by tt length, and by headtube length.
-- the '2.2' formula does seem to have some validity. Again, my own e.g.: 174 cm height divided by 84 inseam gives 2.07 -- well within the range, but suggesting a caution against too long a top tube.
I think another worthwhile approach is Dave Moulton's chart (can find the whole thing with explanatory comment on his bike blog).
-- on the .67 x inseam measurement, (a) i.s. is with barefeet, and (b) the multiplier gives you what was (BCG [before compact geometry]) the rough centre-to-top (of top tube, along the seat tube) sizing for a traditional frame. E.G. my inseam of 84 cms. x .67 puts me on a c-t frame of about 56, or about 54 centre-to-centre (56 c-c would be too big for me). With compact frames, you really have to size more by tt length, and by headtube length.
-- the '2.2' formula does seem to have some validity. Again, my own e.g.: 174 cm height divided by 84 inseam gives 2.07 -- well within the range, but suggesting a caution against too long a top tube.
I think another worthwhile approach is Dave Moulton's chart (can find the whole thing with explanatory comment on his bike blog).