Thread: bare knuckles
View Single Post
Old 04-03-08 | 10:04 AM
  #69  
SkyeC's Avatar
SkyeC
I scream for ice cream.
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 531
Likes: 1
From: Broakland, CA
Originally Posted by comradehoser
Sizing by seattube (conventional size labeling) IS an issue for people who are buying frames over the internet and cannot test-ride them. A high BB can make a company's declared 57cm bike fit like a 59 or 60cm square bike.

mihlbach knows this. All he is saying is that sizing conventions vary widely across companies, and at best, they should be treated as rough guidelines only. Ditto with top-tube to ground measurements (standover height). Consumers should never trust these numbers, but instead look at the actual stated geometry and length of the tubes--particularly the TT length, I'd say--when deciding which given size of bike to buy.

seatube/standover sizing and BB height is also an issue and a source of confusion in cyclocross bikes. Standover actually does matter "more" in the case of 'cross, given its off-road nature. But mihlbach is correct that in road applications, you can have very snug standover heights without it being that much of an issue. I remember reading an 80s bike book that said if you could straddle the top tube while leaning the bike over, you were fine, although I think that's pushing it a bit.

I tend to not size by seat tube but size by top tube. I like a 53 top tube so I buy bikes with that. The Bareknuckle I have happens to be 50x53. I've also recently had a 52x53 road bike, and my previous track bike was a 53x53 which felt fine too. What didn't feel ok was when I bought a 54x54 roadie, forget that Rivendellesque sizing, I did not feel ok on that bike!

And FWIW, my Cannondale CAAD9 had a BB height just as high as my Bareknuckle...
SkyeC is offline  
Reply