dan3324 

I was wondering if any of you have ridden a bicycle that was slightly too big for you and never realized that a smaller frame would fit best? I just realized this after I bought a second road bike ( a 22" 1980s Panasonic DX-4000 )that was the same measurements as my first one ( Raleigh 1970 21" 1/2 Super Course). I rode the Raleigh for over a year now and I thought it was my fit, but looking online I was reading that a better size would be a 20". My measurements are a 30" inseam and im 5'7". I guess you could say I'm just bummed out

thinktubes 

Sure.

Here's progression of frames sizes I've tried until I figured out that the sweet spot for me is 57/56 or 58/57. I'm 6' 1"

56
60
62
58
60
56
57

cdmurphy

Figuring out your best frame size is usually an iterative process. Also, seat tube length really doesn't determine how a particular frame will fit, other than generally. Top tube length is usually more important. The seat tube length just determines how high / low you can get the bars. Top tube length determines how far forward you need to reach. If your inseam to height ratio is pretty normal, you will do well with square frames, where the seat tube and top tubes are equal lengths. If you're all legs, then tall frames with short top tubes fit best. Conversely, if you have short legs for your height, then a longer top tube will keep you from feeling cramped. At your height and inseam, I would guess a 54 to 56cm frame might be a better fit, but it really depends on your proportions and desired riding position.

As an example, I'm 5'11", with a 35.25" inseam. I have bikes from 57 to 64cm set up with almost identical contact points. The key being they all have top tubes between 56 and 57cm, and short stems. My perfect frame would be 62cm seat tube x 56cm top tube. Unfortunately, the pickings are kind of slim at that geometry.

grayEZrider

Back in 79 I bought a nifty new REAL bike (Ross Pro). The fit thinking back then was you rode the tallest bike you could stand over. Since I was 6 ft with a 33" inseam, the bike was 25". Used it and some beater bikes until I bought a retirement gift for myself from a good LBS who fitted me to a sloped tube 55C KHS Flite 223. Complicating the issue is my 35" arm span.But it fits great and and all six C&V bikes I now have and ride regularly are 54 to 60. (21.5 to 23.5) Adjustable stems handle the rest!

dan3324 

Thanks for the insights. I'm not sure if the top tube is a problem yet. I'll pay more attention on my rides. thinking back, i can get an angle with my arms without having to reach far. the top tube is 56cm i believe and my arm is 24 1/2 " so would using those numbers give a good scale for top tube length?

JoeBass

I own and ride bikes that range from 45cm up to 58cm, and I fit perfectly fine on them all. Different vibes to the different frame sizes, from an old time, classic French fit, largest frame you can fit on, to the modern race fit concept of the smallest frame you can possibly ride. I really enjoy the variation, but then again, I ride recumbents also.

70sSanO

In 1986 I bought a 56cm Cannondale. I'm 5'9" with a 30" inseam. Went to a shop and that is what they had. A couple years later I bought another Cannondale frame. They didn't have a 54cm, so I got another 56cm.

I realize that the frame is too big, but I have a long torso, so for me the incorrect size has been a perfect fit and I've ridden it for years pain free.

John

RiddleOfSteel

The first vintage road bike that began this whole C&V (and really, entire bike) saga was a 52cm / 21" 1985 Schwinn World Sport. I am 6'5" but it was offered to me for free and I knew nothing of proper saddle height or anything. As I became more knowledgeable, the saddle height went up, and a stem adapter allowed for a higher handlebar height without looking too weird. For a while after, even as I had the saddle height nailed (or even a little too high), I didn't like frames taller than 56 or 58cm as they looked weird or not pretty enough. Somehow, that mindset changed enough and I bought my 25"/63.5cm Ross and it kind of went from there with increasingly taller frames. My very recent 61cm Marinoni save is a stark exception to my 25" frame rule. I've tried 26" and 27" frames and though I could fit on them, it wasn't ideal. I love 25" frames now, and have for a while. They always catch my eye as they are somewhat uncommon. There is a regal quality to their height and stance.

busdriver1959

Since you didn't know it was "wrong", it probably wasn't. If you can get the three contact points, seat, pedals, bars, in the correct positions, the frame size isn't wrong, just different.

RobbieTunes

Constantly.

jimmuller 

If you did anything without knowing, how would you know?

I have ridden, actually owned and still own, a bike that at times in the past struck me as too large after I had owned it for a while. Now however the same bike and others of the same size strike me as just fine. I think it shrunk after I rode it in the rain once.

Andreas Faggin

This happened to me in a different way: I rode a smaller frame than needed. It was pretty bad. Sympathy for you.

Charles Wahl

What you read online about fit means far less than how you feel when riding the bike, and there's a large range that people with this or that body measurement resulting in a personal fit. Fit is extremely personal. I have a 32 inch inseam, and am not comfortable riding bikes with smaller than 24 inch seat tube. Another factor here is that "racerboys" who opine about fit and bike shop fit experts, like the bike industry at large, are all talking about bikes with a sloping top tube, resulting in shorter seat tubes than vintage bikes have. So it may be a case of apples and oranges. A 1970s bike, for sure, and quite probably a 1980s bike, have the older-style geometry.

jimmuller 

Spot on.

fify

dabac

+1

If it works, it works.

I'd rather be comfortable on an unorthodox fit than miserable on a traditional fit.

What you might do is to use the knowledge and try another, traditionally fitted bike.
See if you have missed something.
Until you know that for sure, no need to feel bummed about anything.

The Golden Boy 

I have two sets of stereo speakers that I thought were completely fantastic for 20 years until I read on the internet that they suck.

I must've been wrong.

No. I like them a lot.

I'm around 5'8" with a 30" inseam- I'm comfortable on 54/21" frames. Smaller and I feel really cramped. Larger and I don't like that whole 'putting a whole lot of thought into dismounting' sort of thing.

Charles Wahl

Maybe it would help a little if I say that I think the OP's bikes are too small for him.

Stormsedge

None of my bikes were the wrong size until I started reading bike forums...ignorance was bliss!

FBinNY 

This is where obsessing over theory gets you no place.

You rode a bike for a year and were perfectly happy, now because of something you've read you're bummed out.

Ask yourself why? If you don't notice a problem when riding, then by definition, you don't have one. Go to a hypnotist and forget whatever you've read and enjoy your bike like you used to before you were robbed of your innocence.

jimmuller 

Admitting that anecdotal evidence may be meaningless and that we all have different tolerances for many things in this world which includes bike fit, I will throw this out. I've tried to get two parameters right on all my bikes, the reach from saddle to bar and the saddle to pedal distance. Saddle to pedal is pretty easy to judge by riding and easy to adjust. Saddle to reach is subject to a bunch of variables like stem length, saddle to bar drop, TT length, etc. With nine solo bikes plus a tandem I have a pretty big collection to judge.

Some of the solo bikes are nominally the same frame size, are few are measurably different. Measurable dimensions such as TT length or TT height or HT length vary. I've managed to make them all comfortable. Even so, when I measure saddle to bar, for example, I see differences. They all feel different, even between bikes that are measurably similar. But I'm quite happy on all of them.

The point is, you can play the numbers game forever but in the end it has to feel good. With a bit of trial and error you can dial in a bike pretty easily. Even more, there may be a pretty big range of settings than work for you. Or at least for me, anecdotally.

If anyone asked me I'd say don't fret over it. And if you aren't competing then any minor improvement you can learn from a Fitting or a Theory is probably money not well-spent.

Botte66

When I was a teenager in the 60s, I rode a 26" Bottecchia. I loved it and took an 800 mile tour on it. That was before touring and touring bikes became popular. In the 70s I had a Schwinn Varsity that was 26". It was heavy but I still did a 250 mile tour on it with my 3 year old son in a bike seat perched over panniers full of camping equipment. In the 80s I acquired a used Panasonic that was only 20". I didn't know anything about fit. I liked the ride and the price was right. I still ride that Panny. The others are long gone. I am 5'10" with a 31" inseam. I think bike fit has shrunk over the years. Maybe because of the influence of mountain bikes being smaller. They became the most popular style in the 90s. I must admit I find it easier to swing my old legs over a smaller frame. My sweet spot is probably in the 22-24" range. Maybe when I grow up I'll get the right size. In the meantime, I enjoy riding what I have.

grayEZrider

[QUOTE=jimmuller;19819978]Admitting that anecdotal evidence may be meaningless and that we all have different tolerances for many things in this world which includes bike fit, I will throw this out. I've tried to get two parameters right on all my bikes, the reach from saddle to bar and the saddle to pedal distance. Saddle to pedal is pretty easy to judge by riding and easy to adjust. Saddle to reach is subject to a bunch of variables like stem length, saddle to bar drop, TT length, etc. With nine solo bikes plus a tandem I have a pretty big collection to judge.

Some of the solo bikes are nominally the same frame size, are few are measurably different. Measurable dimensions such as TT length or TT height or HT length vary. I've managed to make them all comfortable. Even so, when I measure saddle to bar, for example, I see differences. They all feel different, even between bikes that are measurably similar. But I'm quite happy on all of them.

I took an old Nishiki and bought a multiple length/angle/rise stem and made it a "mule". Fooled around with every adjustment until everything felt right, them recorded every measurement I could think of. All bikes since are initially set up to those numbers and then adjustments are made while riding until each feels right. No two come out alike, but it speeds things up and they all feel good. (and shorting air pressure by ten pounds helps everything).

corrado33

Geeze. I thought "I" rode small bikes.

I got lucky.... kinda. My first road bike I bought was a 58 cm compact frame. It was too large for me. (I'm 5' 10") I always felt "perched" on top of it. I realized that when I bought my second frame, a 56 cm horizontal top tube bike. That one fit a heck of a lot better. Then I went the other way, and bought a 53.5 cm seat tube bike (Custom built... not for me.) That one is a bit too small, although it's still my fastest bike (for obvious... aero reasons.) Now I'm back on the 56 cm bandwagon and my 3 other classic road bikes are 56 c-t bikes, which puts them at 55 c-c, which is perfect for me. As I get older I may start moving up sizes in order to put the saddle slightly more level with the bars.

So I got lucky because even though my "mistakes" weren't the right size for me, I can and do still ride them cause they weren't far off.

For the longest time I actually thought the 56 cm bikes were too LARGE for me. Luckily I kept buying them anyway! haha

thinktubes 

The one constant with all the bikes that fit me well is that it is quick and easy to dial in the fit.

If you find yourself resorting to extreme stems (long, short, tall), the frame probably isn't a good fit.

dabac

... with one of those variables being saddle shape. I was quite amazed and a bit disappointed with the last fit calculator I tried, as it quite happily used tip of saddle as a reference.
Sure, it might work if you always use the same saddle. Otherwise - no. My lengthwise position along the saddle can vary quite a bit depending on which saddle I use.
So I've modified the system.
I run a length of string or electrical wire across the saddle. Move it around until it feels like centered on my sit bones.
With that as a (rear) reference, recreating the fit of one bike on another gets easier.
I also look at center-of-wrist as a complement to bar position.
This makes it possible to compare bars with a thumbs-forward grip to bars with a thumbs-in grip reasonably well.
I find this to work well for those of my bikes that gets ridden with the same kind of effort, XC MTB, road, commuting.