Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Standover height / sloping TT

    Just curious, where is standover height measured on a frame with a sloping top tube? Many of the cross frames appear to be too tall for me. I'm thinking of building up a cross bike but the geometries of many frames I have looked at don't compare at all to my classic frame roadie, not that I expected them to. My 49cm roadie fits perfectly but I imagine that I would want a bit more clearance for racing purposes. Thanks for helping.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,984
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Actually you want more clearance under the top tube for shouldering and unshouldering the bike. IMO there is no good reason to consider standover as a metric for choosing a frame.

    It's a bit tricky to compare geometries when the top tube isn't horizontal. Effective top tube is only half of the equation ("effective seat tube" being the other half, but is rarely published). There's also the general weirdness in geometry for 700c bikes under 50cm. If you are honing in on a bike and don't have a chance to test-ride, you might want to draft up a scale drawing to compare with your existing bike.

    There is a persistent myth that a cross frame should be sized smaller than a road frame. IMO that's a mistake. A smarter rule of thumb is to size the cross frame same as road frame, but set up the bars/stem 1cm shorter and 1cm higher.

  3. #3
    antisocialite dirtyphotons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    3,385
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    in agreement with the above post: standover doesn't matter, steeply sloping top tubes make the bike hard to shoulder.

    at 49 cm you should be able to find a mtb frame with a horizontalish top tube, canti brakes, 26 inch wheels. put some skinny tires (and bars/levers if you want) on there and you've got a sweet small cross bike.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sheldon Brown
    Because when fashion conflicts with function, I vote for function.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,984
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by dirtyphotons View Post
    at 49 cm you should be able to find a mtb frame with a horizontalish top tube, canti brakes, 26 inch wheels. put some skinny tires (and bars/levers if you want) on there and you've got a sweet small cross bike.
    I wish I could agree with you but finding a light rigid mtn bike that fits the bill is really tough.

    Does anybody make a stock CX bike for 26" wheels that doesn't suck? AFAIK no.

  5. #5
    antisocialite dirtyphotons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    3,385
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    it's tough to find new model bikes that fit the bill, but in the early 90s they were all over the place. i was thinking something like an old stumpjumper or rock hopper. light is a matter of opinion, but an extra pound on the frame can pay for itself in toughness, if you can find a good frame.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sheldon Brown
    Because when fashion conflicts with function, I vote for function.

  6. #6
    M_S
    M_S is offline
    All Mod Cons M_S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Face down in a snowbank
    My Bikes
    K2 Enemey Cyclocross franken build; Redline D660 29er, Volpe SS Cross
    Posts
    3,694
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I lifted a friend's old rigid stumpjumper, it was suprisingly light. Easily under 25 pounds. With some modern parts it would make a good steel cross bike. Stumpjumpers, as opposed to hardrocks, have always been pretty light with racey geometry. Rockhoppers are somehwere in between, probably depends on the year.

    I got my butt handed to me last race by a guy on an old rigid mountain bike (was high end in its day, actually) during my last race.
    Last edited by M_S; 10-13-07 at 07:29 PM.

  7. #7
    +++++++++++++++ xccx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    My Bikes
    2 Felt F1X's, Surly Steamroller Fixed / Free, 2007 IF Crown Jewel, 2007 IF Planet X Singlespeed
    Posts
    349
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    you can find lots of cross bikes out there in the 49 or 50 cm range. screw the mtn bike option. felt makes a 49 cm and surly makes a few small options in the cross check,..and there's the bianchi's...etc. as i said, plenty of options. all of them 700c.

  8. #8
    Run What 'Ya Brung bonechilling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    5,696
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Redline makes a 44 and a 48cm cross frame.
    Quote Originally Posted by doofo View Post
    the main cause of fit problems is riding your bike

    you should have just stopped riding so you could focus on color coordination

  9. #9
    Straight outta the SF Bay sucka free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Alameda, CA
    My Bikes
    Cross Check, Langster
    Posts
    75
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Kona makes a 47cm Jake with 700cc wheels. I know this cause I have the 2008.

Posting Permissions

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