The frame itself is nice, but that paint looks like 90's-era sponge-painting. Yuck. To misquote Johnny Cash, "When I have a Pinarello of my own, I'm going to paint it blue or red or white or black -- anything but neon splatter!"
As a secondary point, that frame actually is my size, or at least the size that everyone keeps telling me I should be riding. But the bike I'm building up now has a center-to-center seattube length of about 20.5" (which works out to, what, 52.07cm?) and the standover height seems to be about right. I've got a (bare feet on the) floor-to-bone inseam of about 33" (83.82cm), and the overall standover height on this frame (without tires) is about 29" (73.66cm).
Does this seem strange to anyone else, or am I just crazy and working with a too-small frame?
I have a standover of 31.5 and ride a 56cm frame. Sounds like you are working with a small frame. I rode with a smaller frame for a couple of months (it was a 49cm frame which was way too small for me) but made it work with a longer stem and a much longer seatpost. That long setpost weighed a ton too. A small frame worked for me but it still felt a bit cramped everytime. Nothing uncomfortable though.
Fit is a black art, there's no magic formula that will tell you what you should ride. There are systems like FitKit or simple lookup tables based on inseam that will offer suggestions. Ultimately, though, it's very individual. Most custom frame builders or experienced fitters will start with one of those methods but then put you through some paces and adjust things based on what they see going on and based on your feedback. Matt Chester (Ti singlespeed framebuilder) just asks you what the dimensions of your most comfortable ride are.
Ultimately we all vary. Some of us will be most comfortable riding a frame too large, others too small, and many will feel at home right around where they're "supposed" to.
Oh, and standover doesn't really mean anything. If every bottom bracket sits the same distance from the ground, that's a useful measure. But they don't and you're not really interested in how far it is to the ground. You're interested in, when sitting on the saddle, how far it is to your pedals. Some swear by KOPS, Keith Bontrager says it's junk (and has a point to some degree). I still say that given that most frame angles in an upright diamond frame bicycle are relatively similar to one another, it's still a useful metric. Just not the end-all-be-all.
Hmm, good points. In particular, I'd never really considered the role that bottom bracket height has in determining "official frame size," but it seems obvious now.
Extrapolation: Does this mean that if a person is comfortable riding a 56cm road frame, and they're looking at a track frame with a bottom bracket that's, say, 4cm higher than that on their road bike, then they should probably be looking at frames around 52cm for a relatively comparable fit?
In any case, I think I'll probably just build it up and see how it all works out. If nothing else, I've got a Chicago Schwinn frame waiting in the garage that looks too big -- one of them will probably work! Thanks for the advice.
Frame sizing has kind of gone out the window with tubes joining each other and weird places these days. Sometimes it's hard to know if you're talking center-to-center, center-to-top, or something entirely different. And some folks advocate for looking at top tube length instead since saddle height can be adjusted. I believe that's been discussed here as well.
Anyhow, no, assuming theat seat tubes are being measured in the same way (let's say center to top), a track bike with a higher BB will measure just the same as a road bike with the same length tube but lower BB. The measurement is from the center of the BB shell to the top of the seat tube, so it doesn't really matter if the BB itself is a little higher off the ground.
It just means that standover isn't that useful. BB height varies by type of bike (road, mtb, track) and cycling era. IT *is* particularly useless when evaluating a track bike's fit.
I mostly can get a decent idea of how something would fit if I had the top tube and seat tube sizes. This lets me choose something that won't be too large as I can always adjust to make it a little bit bigger. I would rather get stuck with something small than large. Standover helps you figure out if your nads will get crushed while straddling your bike and a lot of used bike sellers in the paper and craiglist use that number to indicate bike size, so it is useful to know what falls in your fit range. Top tube length is a priority as my reach is shorter than average (crushed vertebrae in back and arm length don't allow me a lot of flexibility) so I tend to factor that in.
When I meant top tube I meant from the center of the seatpost tube to the center of the headtube (not all the way till the bars). In all honesty you can get a lot of frames to work for you with all the different sized stems and posts. If you are spending a couple hundered on a bike then by all means make sure it fits you exactly as you like it. If it is a cheap junker for 50-100$ then as long as it leaves enough room for the nads and lets me extend my leg fully while pedalling it works for me.
To ad. How often does a person stand over their bike with the frame perpendicular to the road.
If crank height varies by 4 cm and crank length varies by 10 cm.
These just cover leg length.
Back length and arm length re not even covered.
Basically, build it, and if seat post and stem length cannot make it comfortable, then you will know what you need to look for.
So, to return to the example I proposed: instead of measuring the dimensions of the frames to get a similar fit, the rider should measure bike #1 for the following:
the distance from the bottom of the pedal stroke to the top of the seat (total leg extension)
the top tube length (or maybe more appropriately, the distance from the seatpost to typical "grab spots" on the bars = a rudimentary measurement of reach)
...and look for similar measurements on bike #2. Right?
Yes, that's a more sophisticated way of sizing a bike. Keep in mind that having to jack up your saddle or bars and a too long stem are usually considered aesthetic no-nos, you can make a range of sizes work for you. Of course it's going to be hard to get those measurements unless you're going to see the bike in person.
Yeah, sorry about that. I just wanted to make fun of the color and say that my frame is probably too small, and then all these people suddenly started pummeling me with good information. See how they are?