Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Classic & Vintage
Reload this Page >

Bike sizing question

Search
Notices
Classic & Vintage This forum is to discuss the many aspects of classic and vintage bicycles, including musclebikes, lightweights, middleweights, hi-wheelers, bone-shakers, safety bikes and much more.

Bike sizing question

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 05-23-22 | 06:32 AM
  #1  
Thread Starter
Full Member
 
Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 210
Likes: 96
Bike sizing question

Browsing Marketplace I see this old Bridgestone BB-1for a decent price. Says it's 17" frame. Seems they use inches for MTB sizing and it always confuses me. This bike looks fairly small right? Looking to build out something new for the wife who's about 5'3" with shorter legs. It has 26" wheels. Getting confusing info on 17" sized bikes. Any thoughts?
partyanimal is offline  
Reply
Old 05-23-22 | 07:30 AM
  #2  
Senior Member
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 23,212
Likes: 3,123
The BB--1 was Bridgestone'seconomy version of their CB city bike series. It was introduced in 1992. I'm assuming the 17" dimension is the seller's measurement as Bridgestone literature shows frame sizes in centimetres. Here's a link to the 1992 catalogue, which has geomtery charts for the BB-1. They're even kind enough to include standover heights.
https://sheldonbrown.com/bridgestone/1992/1992.pdf
T-Mar is offline  
Reply
Old 05-23-22 | 07:40 AM
  #3  
wrk101's Avatar
Thrifty Bill
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 23,645
Likes: 1,109
From: Mans of NC & SW UT Desert

Bikes: 86 Katakura Silk, 87 Prologue X2, 88 Cimarron LE, 1975 Sekai 4000 Professional, 73 Paramount, plus more

17" is on the big side for someone 5-3 with short legs. I have a couple of bikes for my 5-3 wife (who does not have short legs). One is 15 inch, the other is 14 1/2 inches. Both are MTBs. a Paramount Series 70 and a 1994 Trek 950.

Last edited by wrk101; 05-23-22 at 11:37 AM.
wrk101 is offline  
Reply
Old 05-23-22 | 07:56 AM
  #4  
Thread Starter
Full Member
 
Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 210
Likes: 96
yeah, not sure where the seller is getting their info on 17". I know according to charts 17 seems big but this bike sure seems to be on the smaller side according to the pics.
partyanimal is offline  
Reply
Old 05-23-22 | 11:24 AM
  #5  
Senior Member
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 23,212
Likes: 3,123
According to the 1992 Bridgestone literature, the smallest, non-step-through BB-1 frame was 42cm, which equates to 16.5".
T-Mar is offline  
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.