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


Go Back   > >

Singlespeed & Fixed Gear "I still feel that variable gears are only for people over forty-five. Isn't it better to triumph by the strength of your muscles than by the artifice of a derailer? We are getting soft...As for me, give me a fixed gear!"-- Henri Desgrange (31 January 1865 - 16 August 1940)

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-22-09, 10:27 AM   #1
science!
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Bikes:
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Advice on Soma Rush sizing

Hey, I am interested in getting a Soma Rush but I am not sure what size to get. I am 6'1" about 170lbs with a 33.5" inseam. I was just wondering if there are other riders out there about my size who ride Rushes that could give me suggestions as to which frame size I should get. I basically want a quick responsive fixedgear/track bike for transportation and general fun city riding (already been riding a conversion for a while). I am not looking for an undersized frame for doing tricks or anything like that. Thanks!
science! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-10, 03:38 AM   #2
usherenko
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Brooklyn. NY
Bikes: track bike: Walter Croll Pista / road bike: 2007 Trak 2100 ZR / winter track: Soma Rush
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
5'11" ride a 54cm Soma. Love the fit.
usherenko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-10, 04:29 AM   #3
mihlbach
Senior Member
 
mihlbach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Bikes:
Posts: 6,419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
I the same height as you..the 59cm Soma Rush is most consistent with the size frames that I ride. I usually aim for a top tube length in the 57-58cm range.
mihlbach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-10, 08:53 AM   #4
shinyandfree
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: OR
Bikes:
Posts: 159
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm 6' and I ride a 59cm. Perfect fit. I originally got the rush without the fork and slapped a threaded straight fork on it. Recently however I went back and picked up an original unthreaded Rush fork and I love it. It's an excellent frame.

Last edited by shinyandfree; 02-04-10 at 08:58 AM.
shinyandfree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-10, 09:00 AM   #5
WorthlessBackup
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
6'2" here and I ride the 59cm. Perfect!
WorthlessBackup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-10, 12:14 PM   #6
sau
Senior Member
 
sau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Bikes:
Posts: 83
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
sorry about posting any opinion whatsoever. I will refrain from posting any "nonsense" from here on out.

Last edited by sau; 02-04-10 at 02:44 PM. Reason: my post was nonsense according to mihlbach. sorry.
sau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-10, 12:22 PM   #7
mihlbach
Senior Member
 
mihlbach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Bikes:
Posts: 6,419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sau View Post
the tange steel is going to be heavier then most bicycles
Your whole post seems like nonsense to me, especially this statement, which is completely devoid of logic or meaning.
mihlbach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-10, 12:30 PM   #8
Brian
Senior Member
 
Brian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Between the mountains and the lake.
Bikes: 8 bikes - one for each day of the week!
Posts: 16,683
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mihlbach View Post
Your whole post seems like nonsense to me, especially this statement, which is completely devoid of logic or meaning.
Maybe in comparison to aluminum bicycles?
Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-10, 01:17 PM   #9
filtersweep
Senior Member
 
filtersweep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Bikes:
Posts: 2,615
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I am 6' 1" and ride a Soma Rush--- went with a 57--- and it effectively runs large. I cannot imagine a 59--- it would definitely be too large for me. Consider the geometry--- with the higher BB, the TT is set relatively low (considering the seat tube is measued to the top of the tube) to offer a decent standover, and with a relatively short headtube, unless you go with a rising stem, you should end up with a lot of reach. My 57 has a longer TT than any of my other bikes (a 57, 58, and 59). I would go for a 57--- mine fits perfect.

I had similar deliberations after reading the size chart--- 57 vs 59. I went with my gut--- and have no regrets.

I have no idea why Sau's bike is so "twitchy" or "heavy"--- mine rides like a dream.
filtersweep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-10, 01:40 PM   #10
mihlbach
Senior Member
 
mihlbach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Bikes:
Posts: 6,419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Seriously...you can't "imagine" riding a frame that is 2cm talller?
I'm not saying you are wrong, but I think its hilarious how people insist they have a perfect fit just because they feel reasonably comfortable on their bike, even if the size of their frame is outside the norm for someone their height.

How do you know your bike is a perfect fit? Can you really narrow it down to a cm or two of ST length? Maybe you can, but how is anyone to know if you (or anyone else) is full of ****.

I have seven bikes...none of them are the perfect fit, but I've ridden enough bikes and experimented enough to come as close as can be expected (and it has nothing really to do with standover, BB height, or seattube length). Nobody's perfect fit (if there is such as thing) is the same and to make matters more complicated, fit is a moving target. It changes with your fitness level or even riding style.

I think the best you can expect of these sizing threads is to give the OP some sense of the most common size frame for someone his/her height, but depending on your own personal physical peculiarities that still could be bad advice.

Good luck OP....you might also try plugging your physical dimensions (height, pubic height, etc.) into an online fit calculator, if someone else can provide the link. (I forgot where to find it). They usually do a pretty good job of getting you in the ballpark.

Last edited by mihlbach; 02-04-10 at 01:49 PM.
mihlbach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-10, 01:58 PM   #11
filtersweep
Senior Member
 
filtersweep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Bikes:
Posts: 2,615
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yeah, I can imagine that I would completely regret it if I went with a frame 2 cm taller--- mainly for the TT length--- the only real measurement that matters. My 57 Rush is set up the the same contact point measurements of a 58 conversion and a 57 Look that I ride. The 57 Look is larger than a 58 Trek, due to differences in how the frames are measured. Just saying.... the size is just a number.

I have 5 bikes--- so I have a point of reference myself. Furthermore, if you look at the geometry chart for the Rush, I have a hard time with the concept that a 57 is outside the range of normal. Also, this is track bike geometry--- with a higher BB than for a road bike, and different angles. The listed "size" of the bike is just a label. It is rather arbitrary that they measure it to the top of the seat tube (rather than the top to the top tube, or center of the top tube, or any other arbitrary end point).

But I agree--- my stating that my bike fits me perfectly doesn't mean anything to someone else. All you need to do is spend a few minutes around here to see how crazy people have their bikes set up to realize how blind this sort of advice is. But given the geometry of the Rush, I am not sure how relevent an online size calculator would be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mihlbach View Post
Seriously...you can't "imagine" riding a frame that is 2cm talller?
I'm not saying you are wrong, but I think its hilarious how people insist they have a perfect fit just because they feel reasonably comfortable on their bike, even if the size of their frame is outside the norm for someone their height.

How do you know your bike is a perfect fit? Can you really narrow it down to a cm or two of ST length? Maybe you can, but how is anyone to know if you (or anyone else) is full of ****.

I have seven bikes...none of them are the perfect fit, but I've ridden enough bikes and experimented enough to come as close as can be expected (and it has nothing really to do with standover, BB height, or seattube length). Nobody's perfect fit (if there is such as thing) is the same and to make matters more complicated, fit is a moving target. It changes with your fitness level or even riding style.

I think the best you can expect of these sizing threads is to give the OP some sense of the most common size frame for someone his/her height, but depending on your own personal physical peculiarities that still could be bad advice.

Good luck OP....you might also try plugging your physical dimensions into an online fit calculator, if someone else can provide the link. (I forgot where to find it). They usually do a pretty good job of getting you in the ballpark.
filtersweep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-10, 02:55 PM   #12
mihlbach
Senior Member
 
mihlbach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Bikes:
Posts: 6,419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Mostly agree with your points. I would say if you had to reduce frame size to one number, that best number would be top tube length...but it really isn't that simple either. The tube angles (not just lengths) play a role. Head tube length is important as well, but for a given frame size (say a 57 c-t) head tube height is going to be directly influenced by BB height, so you have to consider BB height...and so forth.

The bottom line is...even if everyone were built to the same proportions, correctly sizing a frame is a complex problem...and most people here are clueless about it. You can't reduce it to a single number. However, good bike fit isn't really a point...there is a window of sizes within which someone can ride comfortably and efficiently. In the beginning, the goal really is just to get within that window. Once you are there, lots and lots of riding and tweaking your fit (and riding other bikes!) will slowly help you hone in on exactly what fits you best.

A professional fitting is a good way to start, but its no substitute for miles and miles in the saddle.

My reference to fit calculators was really only as another point of reference. Good fit calculators will spit out more than a single number, which can then be compared to the Rush's geometry.
mihlbach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-10, 03:26 PM   #13
TejanoTrackie 
Veteran Racer
 
TejanoTrackie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ciudad de Vacas, Tejas
Bikes: 29 frames + 73 wheels
Posts: 10,374
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 233 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mihlbach View Post
Nobody's perfect fit (if there is such as thing) is the same and to make matters more complicated, fit is a moving target. It changes with your fitness level or even riding style.
It also changes with age. I've put on weight over the years, and in the wrong places too. I also have a bad lower back, which does not allow me to bend at that point. All of this has affected my bike setup.
TejanoTrackie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-10, 03:57 PM   #14
mihlbach
Senior Member
 
mihlbach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Bikes:
Posts: 6,419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TejanoTrackie View Post
It also changes with age. I've put on weight over the years, and in the wrong places too. I also have a bad lower back, which does not allow me to bend at that point. All of this has affected my bike setup.
I haven't been able to ride this past year quite as much as previous years, and I've been noticing that my bars seem a bit too low and my gears a bit too high and my stem a bit too long, if you know what i mean.
Another thing I've noticed about fit. I usually spend 1-1.5 months off the bike every year for research related travel. When I get back on the bike, the fit seems all ****ed up, the bars too low and far away with the saddle too high. A week of riding and it always starts to feel normal again.
mihlbach 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 01:01 AM.