Originally Posted by
FarHorizon
The Trek, Raleigh, and Giant dealers say they don't rely on the factory measurements at all, but rather deal with it on a customer by customer basis. But the last time I let a dealer "fit" me to a bike, I ended up with one I couldn't stand over, except on my tip-toes. At the time, I didn't know enough to object - I assumed that this must be standard any more. I tolerated that bike for an entire miserable year before I got fed up with it and sold it.
I'm guilty as charged of over complicating things, but in this case, my gripe is legitimate. It may be that in theory "...with compact frames, standover height is less of an issue," as Mr. John D. Thompson says, but in my experience, it's just the opposite. I strongly suspect that I'm not alone.
Since I'm in the minority here, though, I'll shut up about it.
Well, I don't think anyone's saying to "shut up about it", but I think there are still some misconceptions at play.
Standover height
is measured fairly consistently -- almost always from the midpoint between head tube and seat tube, and in the case of Surly, they'll even throw in the tire diameter used when measuring.
It makes sense for a dealer to make an educated guess as to frame size and then try you on bikes they have on hand, rather than taking specific measurements of you and running to their charts first. The factory measurements and geometry charts (weren't you just asking for them?) are invaluable for those of us doing our own research at home. I know through trial-and-error that 32.75" is about my limit for standover, so it's easy to use that when looking at bikes online.
I would still imagine that your standover issues would have been worse on a horizontal top tube frame with the same geometry -- the dealer probably tried to get you onto the bike that would fit and handle best
while riding. There is never a time when you
need to stand over the top tube with both feet flat on the ground.