I'll start out by saying I'm totally new to bikes as an adult so forgive me for my lack of knowledge. I've recently become interested in the idea of bike commuting to work as I currently live in southern California where the weather is pretty favorable.
In my research I decided I really liked the idea and looks of a vintage steel road bike. In my searches I came across a '73 Raleigh "Grand Sport" in great all original condition. The guy had it listed as a 58cm which is at the top limit of what I had figured to be my ideal size (I'm 5'11" and after multiple online fitting programs determined my size is 56 to 58cm.) When I went to see the bike I noticed it felt sort of awkward but I assumed it was due to the fact that I had never been on a road bike in my life so I decided to go for it. Once I got home I double checked the size and measuring from the center of the top tube to the center of the BB it measures 61cm. So my question is am I not understanding vintage bike measurements or did I buy a bike way to big for me. I'm guessing it's the latter so I guess my real question is if I could make the bike work by switching the 27" wheels to 700c and slamming the seat or should I just sell it and keep looking? Thanks.

If you can straddle the bike without crunching your privates, you can probably get by OK. 56 - 61cm sounds like a perfectly reasonable range for someone 5'11". I am 6'0" (on a good day) and I ride 60 - 64cm bikes. I am probably more long legged than most. Sounds like the way you are measuring, the bike in question should be properly identified as a 61.

Once you get used to riding, the length of the top tube will become at least as important as the seat tube.

Standard frame sizing is anything but standard. Typically most diamond frame bikes are measure C/C but some are center to top. A 56cm C/C is larger than a 56cm C/T. I prefer to measure the top tube length which is always C/C and is often a better measurement for sizing. Many old bikes are "square" in that the seat tube C/C and the top tube C/C are the same or very similar.

Lots of people like to ride bikes that I would say are too big for them but they would likely think mine are too small for me. I am approximately 5"11" (just under and shrinking) and prefer a 56cm C/C frame with the same top tube and a 100mm to 110mm stem.

Some vintage bikes like the E3s that I have recently become infatuated with yet again are only available in 21 inch and 23 inch and the 23 inch feels like a boat, like wearing a shoe two sizes too big. But, in reading through the threads, many fellows ride giant frames (once actually a style) with the saddle slammed down and the bars jacked up over the saddle with extra long stems. And they like it that way. My point is that fit is personal in that your use for the bike, your preferences may vary from mine or even from one style of bike to another.

That said, you may have a bike a little large and in the future, unless you are collecting, avoid 27 inch wheels, look for 700c frames, usually better quality, more tire sizes, it is the standard for street bikes and now mtbs (29ers). I always think of 27 inch as low end department store crap. I know that is not entirely true and an opinion, but it is mine and I stay away from that stuff.

We all have a fit range, I can ride 55cm to 58cm and be happy, like I said, 56cm is my sweet spot.

As to stand over, for cross and mtbs more is better, for street and commuting less can be acceptable but for me, I get nervous about any bike that I do not have approximately 2 inches clear in my stocking feet and more does not hurt my feelings. I have a performance and racing background so obviously that is influencing my smaller (in my fit range) is better than larger thinking.

This is what little I know about Vintage Bicycle Fitting and it has worked well for me hundreds of times.

To answer one of your questions, swapping wheels from 27" to 700c will lower the TT by 0.4cm, which is to say nothing you will notice.

FWIW back then it was more common in the US at least to measure frame size from the center of the BB to the top, not the center, of the ST, or even the top of the seat lug which could be a bit higher than the tube itself. By that measure your bike could even have been called a 62, maybe.

Well, if you can straddle it safely, try it. But the other measurement is the length, or the distance from saddle to handlebar. You can move the saddle forward on the seatpost, and even install a stem with shorter reach. But these are imperfect fixes for a bike that is really too big.

Also FWIW, I used to be almost 5'11", now am a bit shorter, with pretty normal proportions. There is no way I could ever have ridden a bike that big comfortably. Also FWIW, for judging fit I would put more faith in how a bike feels that in online or bike-shop fitting programs.

Great responses above by extremely knowledgeable people whom I have a lot of respect for.

One variable not mentioned directly (stand over comfort) in the text is the crotch bone height (CBH and other references). I am 5' 11" but have an inseam of 32 and a CBH of 35. My range is a bit narrower than others with 58 - 61 working well. I have a bike with measurements at both ends of the range. Most of mine are 60's with none being 59. I did pick up a 57, but determined it was too small but fits my daughter well who's CBH is less than mine but she is the same height.

I compensate TT variance within this range by choosing a stem the right length.

Yeah, center of the BB to top of the top of the seat tube was the de facto standard. So 62 or so is right. Some would measure to the actual top of the seat tube lug, others would use the imaginary intersection of the top of the top tube and the center of the seat tube.

Center to center was the oddball way.

If you can stand over the bike and lift it up a little, ideally around an inch, than it is OK. If you can't get your heels on the ground, get another bike. 5' 11" would normally fit around a 58 on average.

One question for the OP, regarding the Gran Sport he purchased. Are you able to stand, flat-footed, over the top tube without getting crunched? I think that the more expert folks here, like those in the above replies, could help you more if you could post a picture of you, straddling the top tube, with your regular riding shoes on. If they can see how close, or out of kilter, your fit is now, they can guide you towards what you need to look at.

BTW, nice choice for your bike, those are an undervalued Raleigh, IMHO. If you can get this one sorted out so that it does fit you properly, I think you will be really happy with it. At least some pics of this one would be a treat for us, too. Best of luck on sorting your fit out, and on your riding.

Bill

It sounds like the person's measurement was way off, and was probably not even measured. You bought a frame that was too big for yourself.

My take on this is simple...if it does not feel right when you ride it, then it is the wrong size for you. As others have said, on the "height" (generally as measured by seat tube length, but sometimes people think about standover height) of the bike, it comes down to two things: (1) not getting "crunched" when you have to stand the bike and (2) being able to adjust the height of the saddle to the pedals...making sure that at the bottom of the "stroke" you have your knees bent a bit.


Also, as I have adjusted to different height bikes, I have found that the dimensions that make it truly comfortable or not is more along the Top Tube length...or distance from saddle to handlebars (in plain language)...you want to look at that dimension on the distance (i.e. Top Tube length) from the saddle to handlebars and on the drop (is the saddle higher than the handlebars or vice versa). It is, generally, more comfortable to have the handlebars a bit higher than the saddle...but...again, ride and decide!


Hope this helps a bit...and welcome to the Bike Forums...you are already getting a ton of good advice here!

One thought before you go through all the contortions and rigmarole of getting things investigated and then sorted out. Set up the seat height at close to its lowest position, and then ride the bike a bit, not even a long ride, just a short test. If you are rocking back and forth as you ride, in your hips and in an exaggerated motion, it is probably little chance of the bike fitting you. This is just a suggestion to see if all the various fitting methods will be worth the time and efforts they will require. Not really highly technical, or scinetific, but you can have some idea of whether or not you can comfortably ride this particular bike..

Oh, as said, "Welcome To BF" and to the C&V Forum in specific. Good choices on your part, along with the bicycle.

Bill

Thanks for all of the responses!

I can stand over the TT flat footed but have nowhere close to 2", more like 1/2".

I will try this when I get home today and I will also post some pictures as requested.

This is pretty much the conclusion I'm coming to also. Thanks again for all of the help.

Please do your self a favor and read through this and decide what type fit you want and then take the measurements. You will end up knowing pretty closely what size you should target. An ill fitting bike can ruin the experience for anyone.
Bicycle Fit Calculator: Bike Fit Calculator | Find Your Bike Size | Competitive Cyclist

Oddly enough in the 70s 1/2" of standover was considered acceptable, but 1 to 1.5" was correct.

Smaller frames with 2" of standover height became fashionable in the mid 80s thanks to Greg Lemond (and others).

You have the BB height factor, since the center of the BB spindle is the base point for seat tube length.
and seat tube length is shorthanded as Size.

here....

measure yourself and use the eddy fit calcs:

Bike Fit Calculator | Find Your Bike Size | Competitive Cyclist

[IMG][/IMG]

Here is a picture of the bike in question. At this point I think I've decided to sell and keep looking for the right bike.

Jeese, that is a beautiful Gran Sport, and a tall one, too. I'm surprised that you have even ½" of clearance when you straddle it. you must be very long legged. Selling it shouldn't be too difficult, as nice as it looks from your picture. You need to give a picture of you straddling the bike, and if you have a helper, one of you on the saddle with feet on the pedals.

Best of luck on your decision.

Bill

Yes, that bike, sadly, is too big for you. It does not matter if you use an "Eddy" fit or a Lemond fit or a whacky fit, it is too big. Too bad.

If you decide that this bike isn't for you, let me know! I'll buy it from you.

Thanks for all the advice and the compliments on the bike. It really is a beautiful bike and I wish I could comfortably use it. Unfortunately it's not the right one for me so I will be selling it. As for finding the right bike for me are there any recommended websites to shop for bikes like these other than Craigslist or Ebay? At least in San Diego the local craigslist is overrun with beach cruisers and super custom full carbon ($$$$) road bikes which is one reason I took the chance when I found this one.
sending you a message.

I was in a similar position as you. I'm a hair under 5'11" and when I got back in to road bikes, I had picked up a nice 1984 Centurion Elite RS with a 62cm frame.

No matter what I did to adjust things I was never completely comfortable on the bike. Any rides longer than 10 miles or so would result in (pick one or more) neck/shoulder/back/hip/genital soreness.

I built up a 58cm Trek Elance 310 and I'm MUCH more comfortable. I ended up at the 58cm size by using the fit calculator several people already posted.

Welcome aboard, good luck finding a frame to fit you, and keep us posted!