Originally Posted by
merlin55
In most all cases, a smaller frame is better than a too large frame. Larger frames have long top tubes, requiring a shorter stem...and may still be too long for a comfortable reach. A bike that fits is like your skin, it moves with every move you make, you almost don't even notice it while you are riding....
I disagree on sizing - slightly too large is better. A perfect fit is, of course, even better.
Originally Posted by
Walter
I fall into the now old school view that a frame that is a little larger is better than one that is too small. Within reason of course, the guy above who is 5-8 riding a 60cm was obviously on too big of a frame.
Anyways a slightly larger frame is (to me) usually a bit more comfortable and they don't require a foot and a half of seatpost.
If you look at racers from way back through the 1980s they're all on frames that would be considered "too big" nowadays. Didn't seem to keep them from being fast though.
If you're racing alot there may well be advantages to getting on as small a frame as you can but otherwise I'd rather err to the (slightly) larger side.
+ 1. I have a tendency to run a little large. Ideally, my TT should probably be between 530mm at the longest and 520 at the shortest. Currently, I ride a bike with a 537mm top tube. With a 100mm stem (and 83mm reach bars), it fits perfectly. Since I'm really short, having a slightly higher head tube isn't really a problem. My position is still low and aero without even bottoming out the spacers. If I get more limber I could probably drop another 1 to 1.5 cm to the bars if I really wanted to. My major reason for going a bit large is some degree of paranoia about bad handling thanks to compromised geometry on many small frames. It bothers me that I'm 5'5" (short, but taller than many women) and still would often find myself on the smallest or second-smallest bike in a manufacturers line.
As for weight, keep in mind that a longer seatpost is much heavier than the same length of seat tube.