Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    CA, USA
    My Bikes
    Surly CrossCheck, Xootr Swift
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Cross frame sizing chart: use this to estimate your frame size

    I've gone through most of the posts where ppl have reported their height/inseam measurements and what frame size they are on (including model). Hopefully this will help those who are trying to determine what size frame they should be looking at.

    I'll keep this document updated as more ppl post their data.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    CA, USA
    My Bikes
    Surly CrossCheck, Xootr Swift
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Just realized not everyone may want to d/l word documents so here's a screenshot instead.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  3. #3
    Team Beer Cynikal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Sacramento CA
    My Bikes
    Too Many
    Posts
    5,768
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm 70" with an inseam of 32" my poprad is a 54 and fits perfect.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    CA, USA
    My Bikes
    Surly CrossCheck, Xootr Swift
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    At the risk of over-simplifying, I've plotted frame size versus height; seems to show a good correlation. To use, find your height on the bottom axis and then draw a straight line up to meet the red line, then move left to find your frame size. I would say accuracy is plus or minus 1 cm. Should get much better as I add more data. Keep the numbers coming!
    Attached Images Attached Images

  5. #5
    BF Risk Manager
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Snohomish County, Washington USA
    My Bikes
    Road, mountain and folding
    Posts
    896
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I wonder if the chart would be better if you plotted cycling inseam vs. frame size. Can you try that and post it? It would be interesting to see the correlation there as opposed to height.
    Regards, MillCreek
    Snohomish County, Washington USA

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    My Bikes
    2006 Specialized S-Works Tricross
    Posts
    462
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Bike: Specialized S-Works Tricross
    Frame Size: 54 cm
    Height: 70 in
    Inseam: 32 in

    Comments:
    Nice upright riding position for urban commuting. Position is cramped when down in the drops. Suppose if I wanted to favor fast road riding over commuting I would change to a longer stem.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Syracuse, NY
    Posts
    585
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My LBS has a 2007 54CM Tricross Sport. I rode it for a few miles and really felt comfortable on it. I felt like I was stretched in the drops properly and the standover was perfect. My height is 69 inches with a 32 inch inseam.

    When I can finally afford it that is most likely the size I will buy.

  8. #8
    Don't smoke, Mike. shapelike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Toronto
    My Bikes
    Devinci Tosca, IRO Rob Roy
    Posts
    3,295
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Bike: Devinci Tosca
    Frame Size: M/55 (effective top tube length)
    Height: 70"
    Inseam: 33.5"

    Obviously I've got long legs and a short torso. I opted for the Tosca because it's a "medium" frame with a really tall headtube (140mm). Paired up with a 90mm or 100mm stem (depending on the rise) I've got a comfortable reach and I don't have to deal with excessive drop down to the bars. I see a lot of steel frame sets out there that I'd love other than the fact that the miniscule headtube length basically makes the bike unrideable for me (I don't consider pushing the number of steerer tube spacers to the limit of safety + the highest rise stem I can find an acceptable solution ... I don't like maxing out frames to get the fit right).

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    CA, USA
    My Bikes
    Surly CrossCheck, Xootr Swift
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    MillCreek, frame vs inseam correlation is not as clear. Not sure why this is...my guess is that ppl choose sizes based more on comfortable reach to the handlebars rather than standover (as long as there's enough).
    Attached Images Attached Images

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    CA, USA
    My Bikes
    Surly CrossCheck, Xootr Swift
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Here's the latest plot. For you statisticians, Rsquare = .71 (vs .67 last time) Which means the line fit (in red) is getting more accurate with more data, so keep the numbers coming!
    Attached Images Attached Images

  11. #11
    BF Risk Manager
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Snohomish County, Washington USA
    My Bikes
    Road, mountain and folding
    Posts
    896
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Bikesalot View Post
    MillCreek, frame vs inseam correlation is not as clear. Not sure why this is...my guess is that ppl choose sizes based more on comfortable reach to the handlebars rather than standover (as long as there's enough).
    Wow, that is interesting. I wonder if traditional vs. compact geometry can also account for the differences. Although I have not done an extensive study, it is my impression that a lot of today's cyclocross bikes are with compact geometry, in conjunction with so many of today's road bikes. I am a traditional geometry fan, myself.
    Regards, MillCreek
    Snohomish County, Washington USA

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    CA, USA
    My Bikes
    Surly CrossCheck, Xootr Swift
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Actually I couldn't help but notice that if I took out the Surly Cross Check data, the frame vs. inseam plot turns out much better. Maybe because Surly measures their frame from BB to TT instead of seat post?
    Attached Images Attached Images

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,999
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Bikesalot View Post
    Rsquare = .71 (vs .67 last time) Which means the line fit (in red) is getting more accurate with more data
    This interpretation of R^2 is common, but wrong.

    R^2 is the percentage of the variance in frame size explained by rider inseam. It needn't increase with an increase in sample size. Even if you gathered data from a million riders, there would still be points scattered around the regression line because of other factors--personal dogma, bike geometry, frame availability, etc--which are responsible for roughly 30% of the variance in frame size.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,999
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Bikesalot View Post
    Actually I couldn't help but notice that if I took out the Surly Cross Check data, the frame vs. inseam plot turns out much better. Maybe because Surly measures their frame from BB to TT instead of seat post?
    My suspicion is that people are talking about two different inseam measurements, one being public bone height, and the other being the pants inseam length.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    64
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Why doesn't your chart go any lower than 30"?

    The inseam measurement on my pants is 27.5". I have to buy 30" pants and then have them altered.

  16. #16
    BF Risk Manager
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Snohomish County, Washington USA
    My Bikes
    Road, mountain and folding
    Posts
    896
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by flargle View Post
    My suspicion is that people are talking about two different inseam measurements, one being public bone height, and the other being the pants inseam length.
    Always a distinct possibility. Many people are unclear as to the difference between the 'cycling inseam' and the 'pants inseam'. I always quote my cycling inseam of 32", as opposed to my pants inseam of 30".
    Regards, MillCreek
    Snohomish County, Washington USA

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    CA, USA
    My Bikes
    Surly CrossCheck, Xootr Swift
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jasonguard View Post
    Why doesn't your chart go any lower than 30"?

    The inseam measurement on my pants is 27.5". I have to buy 30" pants and then have them altered.
    Here you go. Looks like you might want to start with 48-50cm. If you're closer to 5'6" I'd go with the 50cm, if closer to 5'4" then 48cm. If you're taller than 5'6", then you have a long torso and should look at possibly 52cm even.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    CA, USA
    My Bikes
    Surly CrossCheck, Xootr Swift
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by flargle View Post
    This interpretation of R^2 is common, but wrong.

    R^2 is the percentage of the variance in frame size explained by rider inseam. It needn't increase with an increase in sample size. Even if you gathered data from a million riders, there would still be points scattered around the regression line because of other factors--personal dogma, bike geometry, frame availability, etc--which are responsible for roughly 30% of the variance in frame size.
    Good info about Rsquare. You're right that it needn't increase with sample size, however, I think we're in a regime in which the current sample size is insufficient to represent the actual mean and variation of the parent population. The fact that Rsquare is increasing with more data so far is encouraging though, and indicates to me that the linear dependency is strong enough to show through the other factors you mentioned that contribute to the variance.

  19. #19
    El Duké Degreaser El Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Evanston, Il
    My Bikes
    Ridley Crossbow, Kogswell Porteur
    Posts
    38
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    All I have to add is that this is great and thanks for doing this Sir Bikesalot. I'll post my data once I get my frame picked out. I'm 6'1.5" and have an inseam of 32, I'm guessing between 56-58 cm size frame (58cm top tube length should fit me) will work. I rode a 58cm Motobecane fantom cross last night on the road and it was pretty comfortable. I'll have to try some mounts and dismounts later this weekend to see if it will work.

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    CA, USA
    My Bikes
    Surly CrossCheck, Xootr Swift
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks El Duke, my hope was that ppl would find it useful for narrowing down their possible frame size and it looks like it might actually be working!

    Here's the latest plots. Use the following preocedure to get the most accurate estimate: 1) Find your frame size using both plots; 2) average the two numbers to get the final result. For example, I come out with 59cm (6'2", 35").
    Attached Images Attached Images

  21. #21
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Posts
    11
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This is a great attempt at some difficult data gathering/crunching. If you'd like to add the Fuji Cross Pro (and Comp), the Lemond Poprad, and the Spec TriCross Comp, here are my meausurements. I am a 34.5 true inseam (but 32 in pants), and 6'0. I just bought a 58 Cross Pro. The 56 was ok, but the 58 was absolutely ideal. Same with the TriCross-58. 57 in the Lemond. Hope this helps. Good job!

  22. #22
    El Duké Degreaser El Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Evanston, Il
    My Bikes
    Ridley Crossbow, Kogswell Porteur
    Posts
    38
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Okay, I am 6'1" and just finished the fit calculator on competitivecyclist.com. Here's the results from my body measurements:

    Measurements
    -------------------------------------------
    Inseam: 33.75
    Trunk: 25.625
    Forearm: 14
    Arm: 26.625
    Thigh: 26
    Lower Leg: 22.75
    Sternal Notch: 60.75
    Total Body Height: 73


    The Competitive Fit (cm)
    -------------------------------------------
    Seat tube range c-c: 55.5 - 56.0
    Seat tube range c-t: 57.2 - 57.7
    Top tube length: 54.9 - 55.3
    Stem Length: 11.5 - 12.1
    BB-Saddle Position: 73.4 - 75.4
    Saddle-Handlebar: 54.7 - 55.3
    Saddle Setback: 6.8 - 7.2
    Seatpost Type: SETBACK


    The Eddy Fit (cm)
    -------------------------------------------
    Seat tube range c-c: 56.7 - 57.2
    Seat tube range c-t: 58.4 - 58.9
    Top tube length: 54.9 - 55.3
    Stem Length: 10.4 - 11.0
    BB-Saddle Position: 72.6 - 74.6
    Saddle-Handlebar: 55.5 - 56.1
    Saddle Setback: 8.0 - 8.4
    Seatpost Type: SETBACK


    The French Fit (cm)
    -------------------------------------------
    Seat tube range c-c: 58.4 - 58.9
    Seat tube range c-t: 60.1 - 60.6
    Top tube length: 56.1 - 56.5
    Stem Length: 10.6 - 11.2
    BB-Saddle Position: 70.9 - 72.9
    Saddle-Handlebar: 57.2 - 57.8
    Saddle Setback: 7.5 - 7.9
    Seatpost Type: SETBACK

    I have found a good deal on a 56 cm Ridley Crossbow frame, which I am pretty sure I will be able to set-up for a good fit. I suggest that everyone at least try the fit calculator at competitivecyclist, just for knowlegde sake and to take the guess work out of sizing/fitting.

  23. #23
    Senior Member climbhoser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Parker, CO
    My Bikes
    SS Surly Crosscheck; '91 Cannondale 3.0
    Posts
    1,657
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This is interesting, and I have a question.

    I'm looking at an IRO Rob Roy. Tony says I should get the 58. I'm 5'10" with about a 32 cycling inseam (I wear 30 pants). I've got a pretty average torso, and actually shortish arms.

    I know IRO measures differently, and Tony has this frame's S/T c-c listed as 54 cm and a 32" standover. That puts me restin' the package on the top tube when I straddle the bike.

    What do y'all think?

  24. #24
    BF Risk Manager
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Snohomish County, Washington USA
    My Bikes
    Road, mountain and folding
    Posts
    896
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by climbhoser View Post
    This is interesting, and I have a question.

    I'm looking at an IRO Rob Roy. Tony says I should get the 58. I'm 5'10" with about a 32 cycling inseam (I wear 30 pants). I've got a pretty average torso, and actually shortish arms.

    I know IRO measures differently, and Tony has this frame's S/T c-c listed as 54 cm and a 32" standover. That puts me restin' the package on the top tube when I straddle the bike.

    What do y'all think?
    Hmm, you and I sound like pretty much the same size, and I have a sleeve length of 32/33". That being said, I wonder if the frame you are looking at is a bit on the large size. Depending on the geometry and how they measure, I would probably be looking at the 54 to 56 cm. range.
    Regards, MillCreek
    Snohomish County, Washington USA

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,999
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by climbhoser View Post
    I'm 5'10" with about a 32 cycling inseam
    I'm skeptical of these measurements. 32" seems low for somebody of your height.

    My recommendation is to take a careful set of measurements by closely following these instructions:
    http://zinncycles.com/fitsystems/DimensionPage.aspx
    Enter them here:
    http://zinncycles.com/fitsystems/default_ie.aspx
    And then post the results.

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
  •