Originally Posted by RocThrower

At 5'9 - 5'10, I'm always between most manufacturers' 54 and 56 (ETT) frames. I know the advice is to size down because you can always make a smaller bike bigger, but that didn't work for me. My last bike I sized down to a 54, and after purchasing several stems, multiple adjustments and a year and half of riding, I never was comfortable. I just finished a build on a similar frame, but with a 56 ETT, and everything feels "right" again. For me and this frame, sizing up was the right choice.

I think you look fine on that bike, and obviously it's going to come down to how you feel on the bike and your comfort level. I think once you are able to get in a few longer rides, you'll know for sure if it is right for you.

Originally Posted by ccinnz

I'm about the same height as you with a slightly longer inseam.
I ride a 62cm frame. For me I find it perfect. I have always preferred larger frames as I feel cramped on smaller ones.
At the end of the day if you're comfortable that is all that matters really. If you rode a smaller framed bike you'd no doubt still have the seat and bars set to something like the levels you have them at now. All you're doing is filling the `air space' that a smaller frame would give you with frame, for what would be effectively the same riding position.
In conclusion, bike size/fit looks good. Let your body and your riding tell you what is right, not what the `experts' tell you to conform with today's trend for an aggressive/competitive fit.

Originally Posted by Iride01

I'm always put in a 58 cm frame when I go to bike shops. But I think they only initially look at your height. They miss the fact my legs are longer than my younger son that is 6'-3". I'm 5'-11" with about a 35" inseam depending on how you measure. I've always felt better on larger frames. I miss the size of my 26" varsity which equates to a 66cm frame. Ideally I think it was 1 inch to large for me. I probably would have been better on a 25" fram.

And in the 1977 catalog I have for that Varsity, they listed a fit size based on leg length. Here is a copy/paste of that 1977 catalog page 5.


Frame size Leg Length range*

17" 26" to 30"
19" 28" to 31"
20" 29" to 32"
(53.3 cm) 21" 30" to 33"
(55.8 cm) 22" 31" to 34"
(58.4 cm) 23" 32" to 35"
(60.9 cm) 24" 33" to 36"
(63.5 cm) 25" 34" to 37"
(66.0 cm) 26" 35" to 38"

I added the metric conversion to the frame size that was given in inches then. As well I realize that bike geometry has changed somewhat since back then, so todays 60 cm frame might have tubes lengths and angles that make it fit like the sizes of bikes in my youth.

But I believe that bike sizing today is still has the same issue as then. Different people have different arm, leg and body lengths. But the sizing systems were built toward an assumed average. As well the calculators that supposedly take those measures and more into account base their size on a particular geometry or two which might not be what you are looking at in the store.

So trying a size or two in both directions seems rational and prudent to me. And as you seem to be into very old bikes too, then today's frame sizing might not work either.