Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    39
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Frame size--better a little big or small.

    I have a 30.5 inseam. This puts me right on the borderline in frame sizes. Is it better to go with a smaller frame and have a 28 inch standover. Or a larger frame with a 30.5 inch standover?

    Also has anyone been to Bruce Gordon Factory? Can you try out bikes? He doesn't have email...


    R.

  2. #2
    Has opinion, will express
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    12,706
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Generally, larger is recommended for touring frames because it puts the handlebar height closer to seat height.

    Stand-over equal to inseam might not be practical, however.

    Bruce Gordon has his own website and email. If you bother to research... he is a regular poster to the touring.phred list usually promoting (or defending) his product. Use http://search.bikelist.org then do a search of the site to find the email address.

    Gordon has a reputation for being difficult to deal with, so be warned. Neil Gunton at www.crazyguyonabike.com can give you a perspective on that (if the narrative is still there).

  3. #3
    X-Large Member Istanbul_Tea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    NYC, NY
    My Bikes
    2004 Rivendell Atlantis, 2004 Thorn eXp, 2004 Bob Brown Cycles Custom
    Posts
    580
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Bruce doesn't have a "factory" per se... it's a shop. It's not like he's pumping out cycles to the masses.

    My opinion if you're borderline in sizing is to go down not up... you gotta be able to straddle the TT especially when you're fully loaded.

    Give him a call and talk to him.

  4. #4
    senile member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Taiwan
    My Bikes
    1 mtb converted for commuting (actually, collecting dust in the garage), a LHT with "durable components"
    Posts
    351
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    agree with istanbu, it´s better to choose one that you can straddle the top tube without battering the sensitive part, extremely important while doing some steep climb and accidently lose balance.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    boston
    Posts
    108
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'd choose the smaller size and put more spacers under the stem, and/or get a stem with a steeper angle.

  6. #6
    Lentement mais sûrement Erick L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Montréal, Québec, Canada
    My Bikes
    Peugeot Alpin Pro, Surly LHT
    Posts
    1,985
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    He does have a factory and you can take a tour of it. Very interesting.

    http://www.bgcycles.com/factory.html
    Erick - www.borealphoto.com/velo

  7. #7
    Has opinion, will express
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    12,706
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Schumius
    extremely important while doing some steep climb and accidently lose balance.
    Huh? Is this your theory, or experience?

    Just for the record (and my *experience*), my touring frame tickles my fancy when I am standing astride it and it is vertical. I have never hit the sensitive spot when "loosing balance" (actually, stopping for a rest) on a steep climb -- mainly because I unclip and angle the bike over the side where my foot goes on the ground. It is rare that my bike is vertical under me stopping, starting or at any other time. Mostly I am sitting on the seat!

    Standover height equalling inseam may not be practical (reiterated from my previous post). On the other hand, half inch of clearance would not be a deal breaker to get the other dimensions right. In addition, compact-style frames such as the Mongoose Randonneur, may provide the right size with inches of standover room.

    The original poster would be better off looking around for other touring models that might just be more appropriate. However, s/he has been somewhat remiss in not detailing the frame s/he has been considering.

    And thanks Erick. Any premises that manufactures is, to me, a factory.

  8. #8
    Steel is Real. markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Lakeside, CA
    Posts
    967
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Measure twice buy once. Not sure how you measured your inseam, but use a thin book and measure it in cm. Makes things way easier. 30.5 is about 77.4cm for you should be on a 53-54 according to the Rivendell chart. Go larger to get the bars up. Seems weird at first, but you will like it in the long run. Makes the drops usable.

    http://www.rivendellbicycles.com/htm...framesize.html

  9. #9
    Year-round cyclist
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Montréal (Québec)
    Posts
    3,023
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If you go for a bicycle with a nearly horizontal top tube (ex.: Heron, Cannondale T-series or Trek 520), then I would go one size higher unless you have really short arms and torson and can't reach the handlebars). Also make sure the bike is sold with an uncut steerer tube and/or stem high enough to have your handlebars level with the saddle. Basically, I prefer to have the bike frame as large as possible. A higher bike frame is also more rigid when fully loaded than a lower one with more seattube exposed.

    Now if you go for one with an oblique top tube, such as the Bruce Gordon, you will go for a slightly smaller size. Bruce Gordon provides a table with "equivalent top tube height", BTW.
    Michel Gagnon
    Montréal (Québec, Canada)

  10. #10
    senile member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Taiwan
    My Bikes
    1 mtb converted for commuting (actually, collecting dust in the garage), a LHT with "durable components"
    Posts
    351
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    that was a painful experience, crouched down by the road for quite a while. didn´t have front panniers so the whole weight was in the rear and, damn steep was that hill, so in one careless pull i was doing wheelie and had to choose between having the bike plus all the gear on top of me or fall to the right. without second though i chose the latter, turned the bike in the air and landed with both feet on the ground. so that short climb took me quite a while to accomplish.

  11. #11
    Long Live Long Rides
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    KCMO
    My Bikes
    1988 Specialized Rockhopper Comp, converted for touring/commuting. 1984 Raleigh Team USA road bike.
    Posts
    717
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, there you have it. Either go one size up or go one size down. You can't miss! I know this is up for debate. I've used a "one size smaller" bike for many years. I think the next bike I buy will be the "one size larger" to bring the handle bars even with the saddle. I also like to stretch out a little when touring. A larger geometry might just give me the stretch I want. My "one size smaller" frame does give me the control I like when fully loaded. Between the two, I'd agree with the "up one size" theory. Just my opinion.
    Jharte
    Touring...therapy for the soul.

Posting Permissions

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