ctak

Wow, and I thought I was leggy at 35.5in pbh out of 71.5. Lately I've been wondering what 62cm CTT x 54.5cm CTC would feel like but for now I'm on a custom 60x56 Davidson. The reach is slightly long even with a 70mm stem.

ctak

That thing is a beauty (I've seen it )

RiddleOfSteel

Heh heh heh. I'll get an outdoor photo for the rest of you tomorrow!

52telecaster

I'm 5'11" with a long torso. My first really nice new bike was a 55 because the salesman thought I needed the standover clearance. It took me 10 years to figure out 58 was what i really needed. I ride quite upright with porteur bars or something similar. Recently I got a 23.5" frame and a 24" frame and i think i could be happy on either with the right stem. I'm not growing, I'm getting less flexible so i want everything high. I feel your pain. Btw, I never look cool or racy no matter what i do.

plonz 

My preferred setup has always been a frame 1-2cm small, lots of post, 0 degree rise and 175s. I have a couple of bikes in the “correct” size and the larger frames just feel bulky and lethargic. I’m still sucking too many back wheels to give up speed because of frame size, perceived or otherwise.

SJX426 

Interesting discussion but how are you measuring frame size C-T-C or C-T-T?
For some reason I have always measured C-T-C. Probably because the head lug features vary in height and to measure to the top the top tube is just as inaccurate as measuring the center of the TT and ST intersection.

Just because of this thread, I measured three bikes and was surprised at the results. I thought they were all about 2cm taller! I thought two of them were the same size but they are not. Discovered when putting them side by side, started measuring and noticing the difference in the head tube length.

The distance from the estimated sit bone location to the center of the pedal are the same in both cases. I knew the stems were different lengths so no surprise there. The distance from the top of the stem to the center of the axle were the same in both cases. Two significant differences are the use of a Brooks Pro on one and a Flite TI on the other. the difference in the rail to sit bone is about 1". The other difference is a 170 vs 175 crank. The shorter saddle and longer crank are on the larger frame.

Using the old school method of elbow on the nose of the saddle to measure the location of the HB was a big failure too. The difference in the sit bone location to nose of the saddle differed by about 1/2" between the saddles with the Brooks longer. Both stems were the same distance from the nose of each.

Which one feels the best? Haven't ridden the De Rosa more than 16 miles (the tallest of the three). The Pinarello is the most comfortable with over 6K of riding (middle size of the three). The Colnago (smallest of the three) is the least comfortable due to the vain requirement of having a Super Record post that is at the line. It has a Swift saddle on it with 170 cranks.

Food for thought on new projects to get each close to the same fit so they can be enjoyed equally.

My largest frame is a Langster at 61cm. Just shy of being the same distance as my CBH! it is a fun ride and it fits fine once I am on the pedals.

Looks like it I need to create a spreadsheet of measurement vs bike, just to compare the numbers and make adjustments.
RiddleOfSteel Thanks for bringing this subject up. Like you and others. I have grown into understanding what the fit of a bike needs to be and what does and does not work. Still working on it. It is dynamic as we change in age and fitness.

cudak888 

That Fuji sounds like it could do with a fairly longer stem - or bars that flare out a bit. It's part of the reason I go for the slightly flared North Roads. Straight back reminds me of the knee clearance issues I have on Raleigh DL-1s (!).

Your approach reminds me of the way many French porteurs were set up. Funny thing, I really haven't built anything with the same approach - except one bike. This Bottecchia, which is getting the Fracophile treatment:



The saddle is presently jacked way in the air, and without fenders, the whole thing looks completely out of proportion. But the interesting part is that these bars have so much sweep back (and are a lot flatter than most) that I still had to run a 100mm (might be 110, don't remember) stem on it, despite the never-ending top tube.

-Kurt

Chr0m0ly 

OH MAN....

I’ve been going through this for like, a year, a year and a half...

I’m not even 5’10”, I’m like, 5’9 and 7/8ths or something like that, and I have a PBH of 88.25cm. That puts my hard inseam length at 49.7% of my total height.

I still have a few 57cm Miyata’s, even though they really are a size too small.

I’ve posted this in a few spots, but hey, what’s one more right...?



24” (60cm)

57 cm (and I think this is measured CtT so really a 56cm)

Aligned by seat tube

Aligned by head tube

I’ve been having a devil of a time getting a steering stem that worked, and this has maybe 10mm more reach than ideal, but it’s been the best of four attempts.

The steering is a little heavy at slow speeds, but on the whole it’s functional. I’m riding it like this for a bit, while if I decide if it’s a keeper or not. I’d sure like it to be... but if I’m completely honest I’d swap it for a 60cm 1KLT in a second. They just don’t come around very often.

RiddleOfSteel

Man, that is a regal looking bike, I must say! I find it interesting that some bikes really need fenders to 'complete' them, especially ones with large tires. My former 1982 Miyata 1000 was one such bike for me. Looked a little awkward without them, and then looked perfect with them. Other bikes with near the same geometry, at that 63cm height, look fine without them. Just really depends.

I think I'll still work a short stem if I go B602s. That back and arm/elbow angle is what I'm going for, and I'll take some slightly awkward 0.5 mph speed issues as long as I can get "the look" and indexed shifting for 9 speeds in the back. I just cleaned, polished, and re-inked the engraved text on a Sugino AT crankset from my '83 Expedition, which I think I'll put onto the Paramount.

Classtime 

You raised the saddle on this 1 inch ? That's ok. I think. Every now and then I have a fit over fit🤔

merziac

As already said, this is very interesting, timely, frustrating at times, surprising and much more.

I have always done this by the seat of my pants, literally and figuratively like many/most of us.

Always made it work and know that every bike, adjustment, saddle and all else can play a big or small part in the long run.

A fitting gives you a snapshot that can help a lot but can also send you down the garden path if it shows you something that seems to correlate with a concern that may be affected by something else and this is where experience can also hurt or help.

Fit is a moving target, it can be a big challenge to resolve an issue without creating another, it can move the problem around until you stumble on/find a compromise that may not fully present itself until the Tetris of it all shifts into place.

I fully agree with a fitting for a custom frame and anytime for a baseline but the fitter needs to be one that is very experienced in many disciplines for a broad spectrum and I think builders are the best for this as they put it to the test when the rubber meets the road.

ofajen

Looks like my Schwinn has a BB drop of 64mm. Stand over height with 700x32s is 35.25” and my PBH is 36.5”. Just enough clearance to not be a concern.

My 70s frame is also a 25” but has 85mm BB drop. Standover height is just under 34” with 28s.

Actually, I’m pretty happy with the Schwinn these days. Funny I couldn’t get rid of it for $5 last year at a swap meet. Now it’s getting ridden almost daily.

Otto

thumpism 

Here we have the main road-ridden bikes in the fleet. From the front; Cimarron (23"), Paramount (63.5cm), Trek (24") and Nishiki (25"), all measured C-T. That level is level when resting on the top tube cable housing on the Nishiki and Paramount, with the other two about an inch shorter.





The Cimarron has a much higher bottom bracket than the rest, resulting a higher seat. Standover height on them is 33.5 to 34.5. Have not measured my PBH but should probably do so for reference. I've always ridden frames in this range and know from my shop days that I can juuuussst straddle a 27" while wearing shoes. I've shrunk over the decades from 6'1"+ down to about 5'10" but I can still straddle my bikes, though maybe not a 27" anymore. Probably need to shorten some stems but leg extension does not seem to have changed. Cimarron and Trek have upright bars, Paramount and Nishiki have drops. All have triples and low gearing.

vintagebicycle

I'm 6ft3in tall, with a pbh of 36". I've always ridden a 25" to 25.5" frame road bike, c-t-c.
I've had knee pain issues for 40 plus years and the only way I can ride is with full leg extension at bottom of each stroke.
About 10 years ago I happened on a deal for a later model Raleigh in a 27" frame size. Having gone over the bike with intent to flip it I took it for a rather long ride.
What I initially intended to be a short quick test ride became a three hour ride. I had the seat set high enough to where I nearly completely straightened my leg at the bottom of each stroke and it was likely the first time I rode for any length of time without some degree of knee pain afterwards. The bike was so big I could hardly get on it, it was about 1/2" beyond my safe stand over height. I kept it for a few years but sold it after finding a 26" tall Panasonic DX4000.
I went through a run of taller bikes, liking the way they fit me leg extension wise, but someone gave me a 22" Nishiki International frameset and a pile of parts. I built that up as an upright bike with north road bars, fenders, and its stock derailleurs. I added a super tall seat post and riser stem to make the bike fit. What I found was that the smaller frame was much more rigid, and I was able to get the leg extension with the longer stem and seat post, it looked odd but rode fine. The bike just felt right.
I'm currently working on something in between size wise, a 57cm with an IGH and fenders. I've still got a Trek 412 I built up in 64cm that fits me well but as I get older, its harder and harder to get on that bike. I find myself doing having to tilt the bike over to get over the top tube, then onto the saddle. I can no longer swing my leg over the back of the saddle.
I gave up on drop bars about 10 years ago, the combination of reach issues, flexibility issues, and getting my beard caught while leaning over made me make a near 100% move to upright or straight bars.

One adjustment that I've made in recent years is to no longer move the saddle to the rear most position, while this helped me gain distance between the cranks and saddle, it put my knees at an angle that caused pain. I now move the saddle as far forward as I can, run a long reach stem and straight bar. It gives the riding impression of the cranks being under me not ahead of me, the result is much better leg ergonomics. I found this solely by accident, I was given an old Raleigh Sprite on which someone had rigged a cruiser saddle to that sat atop a 12" long seat post with an offset, it put the saddle about 3" farther forward than normal. After taking the bike for a quick shakedown ride when I first got it I realized that the position worked very well for my knees. While I tossed the oddball BMX post on that bike, I did mount the saddle as far forward on a slightly taller than normal post and that amount of forward adjustment worked just fine.

repechage

Shorter top tube. When I was 52 and went in for a delayed physical my Dr checked my height... 30 mm shorter than when I started with him at the age of 19.

I have reduced the bar drop from 10cm to 8 or so- varies by bike a bit.

so 54.5 or so instead of 55.5-56cm
i can make the longer bikes work but steering feels better with an 11cm stem using Cinelli bars.

RiddleOfSteel

@SJX426 I'm measuring CTT unless otherwise stated.
@plonz now my frames are about 1-2cm too small, I am living that life! Well, aside from the 0° rise stems. I employ the standard 6-8° ones as they are often available and work well. Just enough altitude gained while not angling up awkwardly. Pretty looking things will always be part of my bike-building ethos, and so if I must ride scaffolding (to keep saddle-to-bar drop in a comfortable range), then it's going to be the sleekest looking scaffolding out there.

I understand about larger frames being lethargic and bulky. Some really are, but every once in a while a gem pops up, or you find that perfect wheel and tire combo that brings the frame alive. I don't know of your propensity for out-of-saddle antics, but as that is presently an important part of my total riding experience. Finding a frame that is willing to dance is critical. Throwing a much taller stem setup and calling it a day, to me, may invite some wobbliness to the affair. And really, race frames gotta look fast, be fast, and I have to look/feel like I'm part of it. I'm not out to hustle touring bikes, but somehow I ended up with a '74 Paramount that likes to play, as well as an Expedition that likes speed even more. I try to mind the "horses for courses" truism, but "slowing up" the Paramount (outside of a "full slow" swept back setup) with taller bars just seems like I fighting its will. Either it's for comfort with a good bit of speed, or it's for leisure and total classiness.

The pendulum is swinging and time and experimentation are working their methods in my mind. I'll be hopping out for another 15 mile or so ride to see how my knee(s) like every-other-day riding (well, at this mileage rate). I have the Land Shark built up and nearly ready for the road. I'll get some pictures for you all because that thing looks fantastic.

vintagebicycle

Something I've been leery about lately when switching to upright bars is how the frame takes the new directions of stress. I've had a few taller frames exhibit some pretty noticeable frame flex when converted to IGH and North Road bar bikes. I never saw any real data on how rider position affects frame stress, but I did have a down tube break off at the BB shell on one bike with Champion #2 tubing, and had a Schwinn Volare frame loose a right chainstay at the BB shell. both were tall 26 and 25cm frames.
I tend to look at 23" frames as the ideal upright conversion size for me because they're just a more rigid frame in most cases.

RiddleOfSteel

I'm sorry to hear that happened to you. Both bikes seem like solid models, not bottom of the barrel offerings. Do you live in an environment where rust could have played a factor? Were they road dwellers or did any of them spend time bouncing around off road (or just off curbs). I've put plenty of Average Athletic Joe power through most every bike of mine, from high effort climbing to big ring sprinting, and my Paramount--my oldest bike and one that had one hub in the grave by the time it got dragged into the co-op--hasn't broken or shown any signs of giving up. Maybe you got unlucky, twice. I think IGH and upright should be fine as it's been done for many years with 'inferior' tubing and QC.

Rocket-Sauce 

At 6'04", I am in a similar but much easier-to-fit boat.

One thing I have learned is that patience will pay off. I will not compromise anymore since there is always another bike out there. I know I am spoiled being in Boston, but so are you in the Seattle area. Loads of good bike pop up every day, and maybe once a week there is a bike in our size that is tempting.

If your list of acceptable bikes is very specific or narrow ("only Paramounts" or "only Colnagos"), then you will be stuck in a land of frustration. But if you keep an open mind, you will find more bikes that make you happy. Personally, I was very snobbish against Fuji -especially anything below their Team model. But then I had a bike stolen and needed a replacement bike fast. I ended up going with a Fuji Ace that I LOVED (still do). Now I look for any 62-64 cm bikes in my area. Frame size first, then everything else.

I am still just as narrow minded, but now with fit instead of builder.

RiddleOfSteel

I will echo being spoiled here in Seattle for choice, and have had that mindset for quite some time. I credit it and several key people for nurturing and allowing this whole bike thing to grow and become more or less self-sustainable for me.

As for bike snobbery, I'm in it for the fitment first, then brand/model next. Case in point: I spent a good amount of time digging around Schwinn catalog scans for 25.5" and 27" model offerings from 1981-1991. As we all know, anything above 26"/27" is always lower-end than higher-end. After developing a soft spot for Schwinns and, finally, later, very large (25"+) frames, they are lovable things. Thankfully a number of mid-level Schwinns (Le Tour) join the more humble Traveler and World Sport offerings, with the earlier 25.5" '83 Voyageur and Super Sport SPs being the most desirable to me (of course). I like pretty much any paint job they offered on any of these models. And a lower end bike can always be given a great pair of shoes, which will help it a lot, IMO.

My brother's Fuji Supreme was built as a road bike with period-correct parts that were mid-level or so, and the thing rode great. Crazy, but I liked it so much I wanted to keep it in the family. It was the second Fuji I had dealt with and enough to easily convince me that they ride a lot better than their 'station' suggests.

So I need to put some pictures up of the newly-setup Davidson as well as my back-with-me Land Shark.

Pardon the accidental white wall on the rear. The axle slipped when the fitter clamped the bike in using a different QR skewer (that should have been fine, but oh well), peeling away the rubber coating over the carcass. It's held up well so far, but I plan on swapping it out for a different pair of tires until I can find another Vittoria Open Corsa CX 25mm.


The very unique paint of the 'Shark is pretty tired as far as condition goes, and I'm still mulling calling John Slawta/Land Shark to see about a repaint. For now though, that idea is nearly in the trash bin because I finally wrestled enough black components together to see how it looked (vs. all silver, which looked lost against the paintwork) and boy oh boy does this thing look fantastic! I accidentally set the saddle too high (gotta measure a million times) by about 5mm, and have lowered it, somewhat, uh, unwillingly (from an aesthetic point of view as it takes away "rake" just a (crucial) touch) but also willingly (too dang high!). Pretty much all of these components were slated to be put on the Prologue to be sold, but only the wheels and tires are a lock. Those 6700 Ultegra rollers are a feisty pair! The next-level carbon/aluminum Dura-Ace hoops (on the Davidson) are worth it for improved ride quality (aka quelling bumps and road buzz), something older rims are good at.

We're getting closer, folks.

cudak888 

I'm aiming for a much more regal look if I ever nail the fenders I want for it. I've already accepted that I'm not finding the accordion-pattern fenders I had in mind. Grand Bois seems to be the next choice.

Funny thing, been experiencing fender withdrawal syndrome with my new PX10 project. I envisioned it with a pair of fenders, but it's driving me nuts without them - enough that I had to Photoshop a pair of fenders on it just to appease myself.

But back to the discussion about fit - I finally dug up an ancient picture (2003/4?) of a 25" Nishiki Prestige I flipped. This wasn't final saddle position, and I had to slam the saddle from where you see it here to ride it. But if you can imagine that saddle position - more or less level with the stem - I found this to be one of the most comfortable and stable machines I'd ever been on. Most importantly, being in the drops was downright comfy. I didn't feel stretched out or curled up.



By comparison, this is the fit I usually go for on my 58-60cm rigs, and I'm pretty sure the saddle here is lower than it needs to be be for my liking:



That's something like a 5" drop. By comparison, Being in the hoods (HAH!) on this bike is more or less the same position as I would be on the Prestige.

-Kurt

RiddleOfSteel

I have saved this photo before because the bike is just so beautiful. If I could get a 27"/66-67cm frame to not be too long in the top tube, this is the look I'd go for. Saddle and stem low over the top tube. Just a little bit of back to front rake to give it 'motion' standing still. If I could wish my Paramount just a little bit taller, it'd be grand. I mean, I'm still making it work well enough so far, and have some more to go, including putting fenders on, but still.

cudak888 

I'll let you in to a secret.

Even though it appears to have the perfect cosmetic proportions, I've "helped" it along. If one was aiming for looks, and not fit, the main triangle would look better if it were 10mm shorter.

I put the Silca pump in. Problem solved.

Here's an old in-progress build shot, directly from the side, no pump. The proportions look a fair bit different in comparison to the beauty shots.



Do you have a photo of your Paramount? Darn it, I forgot - yours is the former Jackie and Joules that Classtime posted.

If you don't mind going for deeper drops by 2", and raising the stem 1", you can gain an inch upwards on the hoods and stay in the same place on the drops. The deeper bar will balance the slightly higher stem. If the replacement bars have a longer straight area at the bottom, they'll also help to break up the large main triangle. A black Silca pump would also do the same trick as I pulled off on the Superior above. Might be just the thing you're looking for in regards to both fit and looks.

Incidentally, J&J pulls off the fenderless look effortlessly. I think it could do fenders as well too. Unlike my Superior, you probably won't have horrendous toe overlap to deal with either.

-Kurt

RiddleOfSteel

You play the millimeter game as well. I like your style. I'm going to have to work the Paramount a bit in its current downtube shifter form. It may do me well to install fenders and thus give the bike some visual mass at the bottom (in addition to some extra classiness), thus freeing up the upper portions of the bike to have a more lithe setup (taller stem, no cable fuss, etc). I will say that the simple proportional difference between a 56cm and a 64cm frame gives considerable advantage to the shorter frame, in that the lower overall height (and height of various frame and components above the tops of the tires) gives, almost no matter what, a more horizontally linear motion and stance than its taller brethren. Especially in race geometry. To me, any ways. Tall touring builds, I think, look plenty good when done right. Height and regality go hand-in-hand, I say.

cudak888 

While I realize all we have to base our theories on is personal observation, I don't think this is enough to suggest the upright conversions were the cause. IGHs often come with North Road conversions, so it's difficult to rule one out from the other, and we're talking about a size which is likely to be ridden by fairly powerful riders if only by size alone.

I have a hard time seeing where a lugged frame - if built correctly - should break because of an upright configuration. If we are to assume rider distribution of weight and force lead to lugged joint failure, one could theorize that a drop bar configuration results in a higher possibility of the headlugs or seatlug cracking from weight tearing the headtube forward and out from the top to the bottom (with similar forces applied whenever the fork hits a rough patch of road, etc).

It may work for you, but I don't see where 23" converted for upright bar duty would somehow be stronger when set up for a rider that should be on a 25" frame. If there's anything where empirical data could come into play, take a look on Amazon at how many supposedly decent, aftermarket aluminum seatposts break in two once you have more than 300mm of post sticking out of a frame.

-Kurt