Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Recreational Cyclocross and Gravelbiking This has to be the most physically intense sport ever invented. It's high speed bicycle racing on a short off road course or riding the off pavement rides on gravel like :The Dirty Kanza". We also have a dedicated Racing forum for the Cyclocross Hard Core Racers.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-25-07, 10:07 AM   #1
Sir Bikesalot
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: CA, USA
Bikes: Surly CrossCheck, Xootr Swift
Posts: 334
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
Sir Bikesalot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-07, 10:19 AM   #2
Sir Bikesalot
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: CA, USA
Bikes: Surly CrossCheck, Xootr Swift
Posts: 334
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just realized not everyone may want to d/l word documents so here's a screenshot instead.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg cross frame sizing.JPG (71.4 KB, 1364 views)
Sir Bikesalot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-07, 12:04 PM   #3
Cynikal
Team Beer
 
Cynikal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sacramento CA
Bikes: Too Many
Posts: 5,921
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
I'm 70" with an inseam of 32" my poprad is a 54 and fits perfect.
Cynikal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-07, 01:09 PM   #4
Sir Bikesalot
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: CA, USA
Bikes: Surly CrossCheck, Xootr Swift
Posts: 334
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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
File Type: jpg plot.JPG (25.4 KB, 723 views)
Sir Bikesalot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-07, 07:52 PM   #5
MillCreek
BF Risk Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Snohomish County, Washington USA
Bikes: Road, mountain and folding
Posts: 894
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(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.
MillCreek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-07, 08:06 PM   #6
Slow Train
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Bikes: 2006 Specialized S-Works Tricross
Posts: 462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
Slow Train is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-07, 07:18 AM   #7
Podolak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Syracuse, NY
Bikes:
Posts: 585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
Podolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-07, 07:29 AM   #8
shapelike
Don't smoke, Mike.
 
shapelike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto
Bikes: Devinci Tosca, IRO Rob Roy
Posts: 3,295
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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).
shapelike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-07, 10:19 AM   #9
Sir Bikesalot
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: CA, USA
Bikes: Surly CrossCheck, Xootr Swift
Posts: 334
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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
File Type: jpg frame vs inseam 1.JPG (25.0 KB, 218 views)
Sir Bikesalot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-07, 10:22 AM   #10
Sir Bikesalot
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: CA, USA
Bikes: Surly CrossCheck, Xootr Swift
Posts: 334
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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
File Type: jpg frame vs height 2.JPG (23.7 KB, 263 views)
Sir Bikesalot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-07, 10:44 AM   #11
MillCreek
BF Risk Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Snohomish County, Washington USA
Bikes: Road, mountain and folding
Posts: 894
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(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.
MillCreek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-07, 11:17 AM   #12
Sir Bikesalot
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: CA, USA
Bikes: Surly CrossCheck, Xootr Swift
Posts: 334
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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
File Type: jpg frame vs inseam sans surly.JPG (24.4 KB, 156 views)
Sir Bikesalot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-07, 01:58 PM   #13
flargle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 2,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(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.
flargle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-07, 02:04 PM   #14
flargle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 2,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(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.
flargle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-07, 02:29 PM   #15
jasonguard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 62
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
jasonguard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-07, 02:40 PM   #16
MillCreek
BF Risk Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Snohomish County, Washington USA
Bikes: Road, mountain and folding
Posts: 894
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(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".
MillCreek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-07, 09:54 AM   #17
Sir Bikesalot
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: CA, USA
Bikes: Surly CrossCheck, Xootr Swift
Posts: 334
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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
File Type: jpg frame vs inseam sans surly expanded.JPG (24.6 KB, 108 views)
File Type: jpg frame vs height 2 expanded.JPG (25.6 KB, 141 views)
Sir Bikesalot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-07, 10:47 AM   #18
Sir Bikesalot
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: CA, USA
Bikes: Surly CrossCheck, Xootr Swift
Posts: 334
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
Sir Bikesalot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-07, 10:49 AM   #19
El Duke
El Duké Degreaser
 
El Duke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Evanston, Il
Bikes: Ridley Crossbow, Kogswell Porteur
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
El Duke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-07, 10:24 AM   #20
Sir Bikesalot
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: CA, USA
Bikes: Surly CrossCheck, Xootr Swift
Posts: 334
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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
File Type: jpg frame vs height 4JPG.JPG (14.5 KB, 163 views)
File Type: jpg frame vs inseam 2.JPG (14.1 KB, 141 views)
Sir Bikesalot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-07, 10:37 AM   #21
massocrat
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Bikes:
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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!
massocrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-07, 10:59 AM   #22
El Duke
El Duké Degreaser
 
El Duke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Evanston, Il
Bikes: Ridley Crossbow, Kogswell Porteur
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
El Duke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-07, 09:34 AM   #23
climbhoser
Senior Member
 
climbhoser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Parker, CO
Bikes: SS Surly Crosscheck; '91 Cannondale 3.0
Posts: 1,654
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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?
climbhoser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-07, 10:00 AM   #24
MillCreek
BF Risk Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Snohomish County, Washington USA
Bikes: Road, mountain and folding
Posts: 894
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(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.
MillCreek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-07, 10:12 AM   #25
flargle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 2,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(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.
flargle is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:09 PM.