Ok... I've looked at several bikes and I swear, each LBS has different theories about what actually 'fits' me when it comes to frame size. Although most fall in the "Buy a medium (17"-19") size frame, some have said it doesn't really matter how the frame is labeled as long as it fits comfortably.
Now, I know that S/O height is important. But, I've read that there are varieties of measuring that too and that using inseam length is really an incorrect way; that you should measure your pubic bone height and go from there. Ok... no problem.
But my question is really about what is wrong with buying a shorter frame than what it may appear you need? For example, the Jamis Boss Cruiser 7 I rode was a 19.5" frame. It was up against my crotch but not uncomfortably so and nowhere near the pubic bone.
Yet, I had my eye also on another bike that had a 16" frame but the LBS said I should not buy a frame that short. It FELT fine and had more S/O clearance so what is the problem? Is it the leverage imposed upon the seat post by having more of the post itself exposed outside of the tube to get correct saddle height?
I did not see a problem at first glance. Should I go by numbers only? Or, by what fits/feels the best?