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 05-11-10, 11:06 AM   #1
mantasm
Newbie
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Cyclocross standover

First of all: I come from MTB background and I'm not much familiar with road(-alike) bicycles.

I'm now shopping for my first cyclocross bicycle.

I just got a nice offer for Fuji Cross Comp '10. The only thing is they have either S (52cm) or XL (61cm) frames.

I'm 190cm. My inseam is 86cm (89cm to the bone) with bare feet.

Obviously, S frame is way to small for me. But I'm worried if XL is not too big for me. XL's standover is 84cm. With shoes, clearance would probably be an inch or so.

My question is.. Is it comfortable to do cyclo-cross with an inch of clearance?

Thanks
mantasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-10, 11:43 AM   #2
flargle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 2,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
For a guy your height, the 61 is probably the way to go.
flargle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-10, 12:51 PM   #3
Andy_K 
Senior Member
 
Andy_K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Beaverton, OR
Bikes: 2013 Kona Jake, 2015 Kona Jake the Snake, 2008 Kona Major Jake, 2013 Kona Jake the Snake, 2006 Kona Kula, 2012 Ridley Excalibur, 2001 LeMond Buenos Aires, 1984 Pinarello Gran Turismo, 1982 Trek 614, 1979 Austro-Daimler, 1974 Steyr Clubman
Posts: 8,743
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 129 Post(s)
Yeah, I'd say an inch of clearance is plenty. Of course, top tube length is really the thing you want to worry about. Can you test ride?
Andy_K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-10, 01:19 PM   #4
Loose Chain
Senior Member
 
Loose Chain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: USA
Bikes: 84 Pinarello Trevisio, 86 Guerciotti SLX, 96 Specialized Stumpjumper, 2010 Surly Cross Check, 88 Centurion Prestige, 73 Raleigh Sports
Posts: 1,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
IMO, neither is suitable, you would ride a 56 or so.

You need clearance on the bar on a bike that goes off road because you will dismount ungracefully at the wrong time and place, for sure.
Loose Chain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-10, 01:26 PM   #5
caloso
Packfodding 3
 
caloso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Bikes: Ridley Excalibur, Gazelle Champion Mondial, On-One Pompino, Specialized Rock Hopper
Posts: 33,738
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
An inch sounds fine to me. As Andy K said, top tube length is the key metric. FWIW, I have shortish legs and a long torso and with the fatter tires and higher BB, the clearance on my CX is much tighter than my road bike but it matters not at all when riding.

Besides, if you miss the saddle on a flying remount, it's not going to matter if the top tube is 1 inch or 5 inches below. You're still going to smash nads.
caloso is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-10, 01:43 PM   #6
mantasm
Newbie
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks for replies!

Top tube (fuji calls it "effective top tube", not sure if that makes any difference) is 59.0 cm (23.2in). According to Competitive cyclist, it should be 62-ish..

Sadly, I can't test ride it. The shop's suppliers are doing clearance and they don't stock cyclo crosses. And they ask for deposit just to ship the bike to the store :/

P.S. I live in Lithuania. Everybody is obsessed with MTB, so it's hard to get a CX there . Nearest shop with a acceptable range of CXs is 400km away
mantasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-10, 01:59 PM   #7
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 Loose Chain View Post
IMO, neither is suitable, you would ride a 56 or so.
You're suggesting that a guy who is 6'3" tall ride a 56? On what basis?
flargle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-10, 10:24 AM   #8
werksmini
Senior Member
 
werksmini's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: boston
Bikes: shogun
Posts: 97
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I have another fitment issue.

It was said that the top tube is more important that the stand-over, why is this exactly? I have been riding a 52, 54 and 56 Jake the Snake and have found that both the 52 and 54 felt way too compact front to rear; it felt like when I was on the flats of the bars I was holding my knees. I know I could get a longer stem and setback post but that doesnt seem natural.

Additionally I felt, even with all the spacers under the stem that both the 52 and 54 were too low in the front. My logic sent me to the 56 but I have a tad less than an inch of stand-over clearance. It has not proved to be an issue for me but I hear that with racing it can be. Regardless, I bought a 56 JTS because it felt right and im sort of fishing for some confirmation that I am not a moron. Can someone clear up some CX geometry/fitment questions for me?
werksmini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-10, 10:46 AM   #9
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 werksmini View Post
It was said that the top tube is more important that the stand-over, why is this exactly?
Because you spend more time pedaling your bike than standing over it. Unless you're really old-school.
flargle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-10, 11:33 AM   #10
SpongeDad
Overacting because I can
 
SpongeDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Mean Streets of Bethesda, MD
Bikes: Merlin Agilis, Trek 1500
Posts: 4,552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I do cross on a bike that is just a bit tall (top tube is fine) - for racing it's fine. Actually, when I missed the saddle once going downhill, I was able to ride the TT a bit while regaining the pedals - would have been harder if the TT was lower.

Where it's a pain is just riding around with the kids and stopping all over the place. I can't really chill out on the bike unless I fully dismount because the cables are right there under my bidness.
__________________
“Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm." (Churchill)

"I am a courageous cyclist." (SpongeDad)
SpongeDad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-10, 01:21 PM   #11
gus6464
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 1,507
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
With Fuji Cross Comp geometry I would go one size smaller than what you think you are. I got my bike in 56cm which is the same as my road bike size and I wish I would have bought the 54cm. It's not that the size is way off but I think the 56cm is a tiny bit too big.
gus6464 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-10, 01:51 PM   #12
Loose Chain
Senior Member
 
Loose Chain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: USA
Bikes: 84 Pinarello Trevisio, 86 Guerciotti SLX, 96 Specialized Stumpjumper, 2010 Surly Cross Check, 88 Centurion Prestige, 73 Raleigh Sports
Posts: 1,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
This bike measuring stuff is not consistent, compare the geometry tables. For example, the Masi CX bike in a 56 is very much like the Surly in a 54. In fact, if Masi were to measure the Surly, they would call a Surly a 56 and vice versa, Surly would call the Masi 56 a 54, lol. Don't hang on frame "sizes" but look at the geometry charts.
Loose Chain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-10, 01:55 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 gus6464 View Post
With Fuji Cross Comp geometry I would go one size smaller than what you think you are. I got my bike in 56cm which is the same as my road bike size and I wish I would have bought the 54cm. It's not that the size is way off but I think the 56cm is a tiny bit too big.
Too big in what respect?

If the OP had a specific road bike whose sizing he wanted to match, he could simply compare dimensions between the two. Which is what you should have done when getting your cross bike. The most relevant dimension is top tube (horizontal/theoretical), but if you really want to get fancy take a look at seat tube angle and headtube length, keeping in mind that cross forks are longer than road forks.
flargle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-10, 01:57 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 Loose Chain View Post
Don't hang on frame "sizes" but look at the geometry charts.
Agreed. "Back in the day" with steel frames and horizontal top tubes, you could go by a single number, but now not.
flargle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-10, 02:29 PM   #15
gus6464
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 1,507
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by flargle View Post
Too big in what respect?

If the OP had a specific road bike whose sizing he wanted to match, he could simply compare dimensions between the two. Which is what you should have done when getting your cross bike. The most relevant dimension is top tube (horizontal/theoretical), but if you really want to get fancy take a look at seat tube angle and headtube length, keeping in mind that cross forks are longer than road forks.
I have long legs but very short torso so while I have a long saddle height, I have to use a small stem (90mm). This configuration works in the hoods but I don't feel super comfortable in the drops. Honestly I am in between a 54 and 56 which is a pain because both sizes can fit me but have to be adjusted differently to compensate. I have gone to two different fitters and really has not helped much.

What baffles me though is that I rode a Cervelo S3 which has way more aggressive geometry than my bike and I was insanely comfortable on both the drops and hoods. In fact the drops felt a lot more natural than the hoods. I have though about getting some new drop bars with a short reach like the 3T Ergonova to see if that solves the problem.
gus6464 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-10, 03:03 PM   #16
caloso
Packfodding 3
 
caloso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Bikes: Ridley Excalibur, Gazelle Champion Mondial, On-One Pompino, Specialized Rock Hopper
Posts: 33,738
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gus6464 View Post
I have long legs but very short torso so while I have a long saddle height, I have to use a small stem (90mm). This configuration works in the hoods but I don't feel super comfortable in the drops. Honestly I am in between a 54 and 56 which is a pain because both sizes can fit me but have to be adjusted differently to compensate. I have gone to two different fitters and really has not helped much.

What baffles me though is that I rode a Cervelo S3 which has way more aggressive geometry than my bike and I was insanely comfortable on both the drops and hoods. In fact the drops felt a lot more natural than the hoods. I have though about getting some new drop bars with a short reach like the 3T Ergonova to see if that solves the problem.
I think that the more agressive geometry of the S3 fits your body better. Steeper ST angle shortens the toptube reach and put your hips closer to the bars. I had the opposite issue when I got my Soloist Team (now called the S1. I think the geometry is the same. Because I have short legs and a long torso, I needed a 120mm stem to not feel scrunched up.
caloso is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-10, 03:30 PM   #17
gus6464
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 1,507
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by caloso View Post
I think that the more agressive geometry of the S3 fits your body better. Steeper ST angle shortens the toptube reach and put your hips closer to the bars. I had the opposite issue when I got my Soloist Team (now called the S1. I think the geometry is the same. Because I have short legs and a long torso, I needed a 120mm stem to not feel scrunched up.
Hmm I did not think about that. For my next bike I was going to go with a relaxed geometry CF frame but now I will have to look into the more aggressive ones like the Cervelo S2, Cannondale SuperSix, Fuji SST, etc.
gus6464 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-10, 09:34 PM   #18
djlarroc
Senior Member
 
djlarroc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Denver
Bikes: '03 Trek Fuel 100, '09 Fuji Cross Comp, '09 Fuji Team Issue/RC
Posts: 366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I just bought an '09 Fuji Cross Comp. Size 54. I'm 5'9 +/-... First road type bike... I did a 25 mile ride the other day and had no soreness. Bike seems to fit me excellent.
djlarroc 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 01:12 PM.