Old 08-25-19 | 11:57 AM
  #29  
RiddleOfSteel's Avatar
RiddleOfSteel
Master Parts Rearranger
10 Anniversary
 
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 4,836
Likes: 2,761
From: Portlandia's Kuiper Belt, OR

Bikes: 1987 Woodrup Competition - 2025 Trek Checkpoint SL 6 Gen 3 - 1987 Lotus Legend - 2024 Trek Emonda ALR Rim Brake - 1980 Trek 510 - 1988 Cannondale SR500 - 1985 Trek 670 - 1982 Trek 730

Originally Posted by mhespenheide
In classic geometry with a horizontal head tube, I'm a 62-64 for the seat tube, 59-59.5 for the top tube (+/- depending on the seat tube angle).

My classic ride at the moment is an '87 Bianchi, 63x59.5 with a 72STA; that fits nicely. The Trek, 60x58 with a 74STA actually works out to have about the same reach. With a technomic or other riser stem, I'd have about the same position. I'm just indecisive about building up the Trek period-correct, neo-retro, or converted to 650b. So it stays on hold.
It's good you know your measurements--it helps a lot in the acquire/sell bike arena...or self control arena. My frame size range is 63-66cm (CTT) with a top tube length of anything 57-60cm (CTC) if given/"normalized" to a 73° seat tube angle. I'm selling a lovely Paramount frame that is a 62cm CTT and that simply doesn't allow me to get a good looking bike while also being in the comfort range. Well, unless I don't do classic drop bars. It's about proportion with me and I don't want a gawky looking bike, trying to compensate for a more extreme saddle to brake hoods drop/distance. Interestingly, a 66cm bike will have its top tube hit my inner thighs when rocking the bike out of the saddle when climbing or accelerating. It's actually a little bit limiting. 63-64cm frames have their top tubes obviously a little bit lower, and that's the difference. All the times I think about having or building a custom frame for whatever reason(s), and then I go back to the reality, more and more, that I'm riding the bikes that fit me well already. That's pretty cool!
RiddleOfSteel is offline  
Reply