Originally Posted by
RobbieTunes
+100
Trek 5000 54cm, I'm all crunched up,
Trek 5000 58cm, I could put the saddle on the TT.
Felt F70 54cm, felt like a 44cm, I ended up giving the frame away as an alleycat race prize.
Marin Portofino 52.5cm, felt like a 56cm, had a good fit.
Kestrel Talon 48cm in tri-mode, fit fine, but I felt like I was on a kid's bike.
When I see a sloping top tube, I run.
My intention with the original post was that this discussion focus on traditional vintage bikes with horizontal top tubes. I personally would never ride a sloping top tube bike. Just have no desire to go there, just as I have no desire to ride a threadless stem bike, although I might make an exception for a Neo Primato. I guess I'm just too old school. All my bikes are horizontal top tube. It appears from the posts as though sloping tube bikes have little consistency with regard to how they translate to fit.
Let me restate my original question and add that that I am asking this in relation to vintage, traditional horizontal top tube bikes.
Originally Posted by
cpsqlrwn
I realize geometry, bottom bracket height, etc. is part of the equation but leaving geometry out of the discussion, what I am really interested in is how a slightly undersized or oversized bike (one size up or down from that perfect fit) affects climbing ability and also stamina. Which bike would be a better climber and which bike would tend to wear you out quicker, one that is slightly undersized or oversized?