Old 03-22-11 | 06:19 AM
  #11  
motobecane69
Banned.
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,095
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by sstorkel
Hate to ask a stupid question, or sound condescending, but: have you tried riding a 62cm bike recently?

The trend toward sloping top tubes and so-called "compact" frame geometries means that you can often get by with a slightly smaller frame. When I started riding, my first road bike had a horizontal top tube and was labeled as being 56cm. Fit perfect! These days, I ride a 54cm frame with a sloping top tube. It's also a perfect fit.

I wouldn't pay attention to the number painted on the frame by the manufacturer as much as I would to the actual fit. In particular, the length of the top tube seems to have more to do with achieving an acceptable fit than the length of the seat tube (which often corresponds to the frame "size"). I found the fit calculator over at Competitive Cyclist to be pretty accurate. I went with the middle-of-the-road "Eddy" fit, FWIW.

If you haven't tried to fit yourself to a "compact" frame, I'd suggest giving the fit calculator a try. Plug in some numbers, see what it comes up with, then compare its suggestions to the geometries of various frames. If the geometry is anywhere close to correct, it might be worth taking a look at the bike. You can always tweak the fit by installing a longer stem, a seatpost with greater setback, handlebars with more reach, etc.
i agree with this but will add look for an INDEPENDENT fit calculator, not something offered on a particular mfg website which is clearly going to spit back SOMETHING that they carry rather than giving you a true idea of what you need. As I mentioned earlier, the compact giant frame i used to have was humongous, it would probably fit you
motobecane69 is offline  
Reply