Old 03-03-08, 09:39 PM
  #9  
Michel Gagnon
Year-round cyclist
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Montréal (Québec)
Posts: 3,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Your "ideal bike size" depends on two main factors: the bike geometry and your pubic bone height (leg length).

So I'm afraid that you won't find anything larger than 62-64 cm in standard sizes. But even those are misleading. For instance, I have a 25" (63,5 cm) Trek 520 (vintage 2000); however, its top tube length is 1 cm less than that of the 62-cm LHT. Likewise, you may find lots of 1980-vintage steel bikes with a 27" frame (68,5 cm), but they typically have a top tube as short as what I have on my 520: 59 cm or 60 cm. In other words, they would not fit you.

So your choices are few, but not insurmountable:

– Get a bike with a long top tube. The LHT with an uncut steerer is not that bad in this regard. You'll need an extra long seatpost and a long stem with a 35 degree angle and it might work, depending on your proportions. Raising the seat is fairly trivial nowadays and raising the bars is almost as easy, so the real issue becomes the top tube length. The large Giants aren't much better in that they don't have a top tube longer than 62 cm.

– Rivendell has (or had) a few models with a large 68-cm frame. Their top tubes are fairly short for the bike size, so the 68-cm probably won't be too stretched out. However, considering the price of their frames, you might be able to get a custom frame for almost the same price as a stock Rivendell frame.
Michel Gagnon is offline