Originally Posted by
Kontact
You're not getting it. Bike sizes are referred to by nominal seat tube length, but they function by total size like a jacket or shoe.
That's why you dont go by leg length or reach (whatever that means), but rider body size.
And there is no reason that a 5'2" rider would go up in size from 15" to 17"
It's actually called effective seat tube length.
Why do you keep quoting single number inch sizes as if we're still in the 1990s? You must be older than Jesus because it's been decades since even US manufacturers have quoted frame sizes that way. In the modern era you get a published geometry table, always in metric millimeters. The so called frame size is often just s/m/l/xl or some generic 1/2/3/4 scale, because your type of single number frame size quoting is dinosaur obsolete (for exactly the reason I attempted to teach you in my past several posts). We are well past the pre-historic era where most frames had similar geometries and a single seat tube number can be used for sizing.
Originally Posted by
Kontact
reach (whatever that means).
Astounding lack of knowledge for someone who has the audacity to participate in this thread.