Originally Posted by
Nakedbabytoes
joking sarcasm aside(like I wouldn't take any excuse to buy new bikes! come on
Pink bike:
1987 Lotus Elite 600 Triathlon bike
44cm. 24" front tire, 700c back.
Black bike:
2003 Quintana Roo Kilo(not TT....lol!)
53cm. 650c F&R.
both have standovers of 28" both TT are 19.5" long. Both fit me the same, but my seat on the Lotus is a tad lower since I want to keep it stock and I am at minimum insertion.
Decade & manufacturer DO matter. a 14 shoe isn't always a 14 shoe.
This means that the manufacturers listed the sizes inconsistently, not that you are able to comfortably ride two different sizes that are 9cm apart
Saying, "I ride anywhere for a 44 to a 53." implies that you can ride a 44cm - 53cm frame from the same product line. That's what threw me off.
That's like me saying I can ride a 52, 54, 56, 58, & 60cm Bianchi Pista. That's absurd.
Inconsistent sizing is a problem in the cycling world. For a relavent example, the "60cm" Trek T1 SSFG bike fits like a standard 58cm and that +2cm size listing extends down the size run ("58cm" fits like a 56cm etc...). This is very confusing for consumers.
BMC is TERRIBLE about it. It's a long story, but their size labels have not much to do with the actual TT length.