genejockey 

My experience has been that when I get a hankering for a particular bike, I can find 54s and 56s all day every day, and even 61s. But 58s are hen's teeth.

EDIT: I waited for more than 2 years for a late-90s Litespeed Ultimate in my size to appear. Turns out - TOTALLY worth it!

dddd

I have made the conscious decision many times, to buy a bike in the hopes that I could adapt to it. Surprisingly, this has usually worked out well, but some of them didn't handle right after I made surprisingly only subtle changes to the stem length for example.
I have definitely experienced the extremes of how being fitted to too large or small of a frame made the handling unpleasant, if not dangerous.

A quite-large frame with slack angles can work ok since the slack headtube angle seems to retain good steering with a shorter stem, and because the slack seat tube angle shortens the reach by 8-9mm for every degree that the seat tube gets laid back.

Using Stack and Reach measurements seems to have the benefit of removing seat tube angle from the equation, but adds the complication of having to measure the reach at the same headset reference height between the two different frames being compared. Otherwise, the (non-vertical)
head tube angle causes the reach dimension to change.

I had a 49cm (c-c) Japanese-made "Detel" road frame that had a long 56cm top tube with ~74-degree frame angles, and it fit me perfectly using a riser stem and extended seatpost. It handled normally as any similar 56cm racing frame would.

So it boils down to firstly, if the frame's reach dimension is in the ballpark for the rider, if the toe overlap isn't excessive, and how the headtube angle jibes with the length of stem needed to fit the rider and still give neutral-enough steering.

Having a long stem extension together with a slack headtube angle may cause "flop" forces to heave the steering to either side when honking off of the saddle.

Having a short stem extension with a steep steering head angle may leave the steering feeling too light and twitchy, making it hard to ride one-handed on any less-than-smooth surface, or even to change hand positions while descending.

Even on a bike that is correctly fitted to the rider, such as my compact "52s" sized Colnago CX-zero, a 100mm stem gives the bike almost too-quick turn-in to be in sync with surrounding riders, while a 110mm stem on the same bike feels very different and produces no noticeable steering bias. For what it's worth, that bike has a 72.5-degree HT angle, a 55.5cm virtual top tube length and a 73.5-degree ST angle.
Also worth noting is that, if the rider is always riding the same bike, then adaptations to the rider's steering response tend to make a bike's subtle handling peculiarities seem to go away, or to become advantageous.

AdventureManCO 

This is a good thought, yet it still makes me wonder how 'legging it out' on a 66cm frame with a shorter seatpost vs a 60cm frame with a longer seatpost would be different, if the measurement to the saddle top to bb spindle are exactly the same. Is the main difference the stretch out over the top tube?

AdventureManCO 

For reference:





This is the bike I've been riding that has given me second thoughts about sizing. Yes, it looks goofy - most of that is the goofy stem, which I did not put on, it came that way. I figured I would rock it anyway. They were basically throwing the bike out, so I figured 'why not?' and it is actually very comfortable, if I can just get an ideal Q-factor going on it.

RiddleOfSteel

@AdventureManCO I would say that the Miyata 1000 and Trek 720 you have pictured are (or seem to be) a little larger than 50cm due to them being touring bikes--longer fork legs for more tire and fender clearance result in a shorter head tube length for a given size. So this works in your favor! The Trek is likely a 21" (53cm) and the 1000 could be a 53cm as well...though it does look petite enough to be a 50cm (they ran 50, 53, 57, 60, and 63cm sizes in many of their top end models).

Bikes that are too small for me, personally, require too much stem height above the headset and look goofy. I'm flexible on top tube length. 57-60cm is my ideal range to work with, and at my 64/65cm+ option pool, some will go to 61 or 62cm, which I don't like as it makes for the need for shorter stems that look out of proportion on such a tall and long frame. So my sizing limitations are largely dictated by aesthetics. I had a 64cm Davidson Impulse that was epic, but its 66cm counterpart--likely with heavier tubing--was nowhere near the magic of the 64. It was good, but I moved it along.

Bikes that are "small for me" are pretty fun to ride, I find. More playful, lighter, more maneuverable. It's candy, ultimately, and I look like a circus bear on them. I can ride up to a 27" or 68.5cm frame, and those are fun in that kindred spirit kind of way (tall rider, tall bike), even if they are almost always made with midgrade-at-best tubing which means I have to work things a little more to get the riding experience where I'd like it to be (or something..). Now I'm going to go look for them now on CL, lol...

Looping this back, if you don't like the look of fitting yourself to a smaller frame, or you have toe overlap issues that are too concerning, or the steering (via need for long stem) is unfavorable, or handling or general balance, or combination of some or all, then that small/smaller frame is likely not for you. If the "deal" was good enough, condition and componentry nice enough, or you don't mind longer seat post and stem lengths, and the ride and handling are agreeable, then by all means, enjoy!

jamesdak 

Hmmm...no words of wisdom just what I've liked over the years.

First off I normally go for 55/56cm bikes. That said I won't hesitate to go down to a 53cm if I want the bike. I've also gone up to a 57cm a few times for bikes I really wanted to try. For whatever reason, none of the 57's every felt right and were passed on.
All my bikes gets set up primarily the same. Saddle height and setback are a set measurement off the BB. Then the reach to the handlebar is also a set distance referenced off the centerline of the saddle. What I don't still too is the same saddle to bar drop or same handlebars. So variation there a bit for reach to the hoods and/or reach in the drops.

So bikes pretty much set up the same no matter the frame size. So why have the larger 57cm frames still felt "off" to me while the smaller 53/54cm's on feel fine or even great. Heck the Bianchi Trofea was even smaller and yet felt amazing out on the road under me. That in conflict with my 56cm Giordan XL Super which feels the most perfect of all my rides.


57 CM wanted to love it but it always felt a bit wrong under me.

Small frame, magical ride. Passed on to find a better one

Small frame, great ride. Passed on to find another one one day in my more normal size to see if it can be even better.

Small frame but not enough rides on it to really say. No complaints but really small.

Small frame, one of this year's favorites.

The only small frame bike I break my rule and have the saddle too low on. Absolutely love this one with the magical ride on tubulars but sometimes gave me knee pain.

Latest small frame pickup. Has my normal fit setup but no rides on it yet.

This is my perfect feeling bike as reference.

As I age I do like compact drop handlebars more and usually use them now on any new setups.

I guess my feeling on the subject is that there is no perfect frame size for you, just a range that works. I laugh at the notion that one must ride on set frame size.

billytwosheds 

My free opinion is that you can find a good fit across a range of frame sizes, something around +/- 2cm.

My best fit is a 56ish, but I have others a cm down and a cm up that work well. 58cm+ feel like I'm steering a boat.

Ride a frame outside your range if 1) it's a very rare frame 2) it has sentimental value or 3) it's nice enough and didn't cost you much, and you have nothing to lose (and your partner isn't going to give you grief).

Most of the bikes I've acquired for good prices have been too large for the previous owner, most commonly the seat post is dropped all the way down and the bars turned up. But they still didn't work for the owner. Plenty of people ride frames we would consider small, and ride them a long time. Food for thought.

Wildwood 

Hey, I totally understand riding a range of sizes. 60cm is ideal for me; my range has been 58cm-63cm. When downsizing the group = first to go were 58s. Like @non-fixie, I wish to use a mix of components that I prefer on C&V bikes. That does not include super tall stems, nor long posts.

Heck, they are just bicycles - and we ride them differently - with different cockpit components - so there is no right or wrong. But if you have ridden a bicycle (or 3) custom designed for you (body comfort, in a traditional road position, with consideration for your preferred riding style) to move much off that 'ideal' feels wrong. Can they be made it fit = yes, with setback posts, long stems anything is possible. Ask on framebuilders about weight distribution, CoG, etc. Small frames in certain applications I also get - such as tri and TT.


The Zeus and Bottecchia about the smallest - were the smallest (as in past tense).

The DeRosa is perfection.

The AustroDaimler is plush

thinktubes 

Sure you can get all sorts of “problem solver” seatposts and stems, but having the right-sized frame is a much shorter putt to the getting an ideal fit.

You can ride just about any size for a short distance. A 100-mile ride will let you know if your bike really fits.

A 58 ctc seatpost is perfect for me combined with a 56 or 57 TT. Agree with the +/- 2cm as a range.

I tried to make a 56/55 ctc frame work, but it was a hassle to set up. Needed a setback seatpost to get far enough behind the BB. 130 stem wasn’t crazy, but it needed to be raised to the limit. For me getting far enough behind the BB is the critical measurement.

Trakhak

What you're describing about the slightly too small bike feeling odd is something I've noticed, too. It's always puzzled me---if I get all the contact points so the measurements match my larger bikes (which are usually about 52 to 54 cm c-to-t), why does it feel different?

All I've come up with is a vague guess that it's got something to do with the bike's mass being lower than I'm used to. Clown bike syndrome, for want of a better term.

And it's not particularly subtle. I can drop the saddle a few cms on a road bike and (ignoring the inefficiency of the pedaling position) easily feel the change in weight distribution when I'm pedaling out of the saddle.

Balancing a broomstick on your palm gets easier the shorter the broomstick is. Anyway, that's all I've got.

nlerner

^^ This!!!

I’d add that extended climbs and descents will also tell you a great deal about ideal fit. I have one bike in the fleet that’s fit seems ideal to me and set up all others in terms of reach, bar height, and brake lever positioning. I’ve done more riding than I probably should have on bikes that were too small; sometimes it has taken lots of miles and aches and pains post ride for me to realize what works best. In short, random free advice on the internet (including this) is worth what you pay for it; sometimes you just gotta ride—a lot.

Kabuki12

I have been riding bikes from 60cm to 64cm for a very long time but lately the shorter frame isn’t as comfy on longer rides. I sold a very nice Medici that I loved , but the bike just did not feel right after a couple of hours. My Raleigh Competition is the same size but , for now, still feels ok . The stem was able to be raised up enough and the geometry is just different. I have been slowly building a replacement Medici in 64cm size and will stick to bikes that really fit from now on.

I hated to sell this bike , but it was too small.

This one is fine , for now

62cm and I can ride this thing all day long
For me , the right size bike is important . A bike that is too small just doesn’t feel right , no matter how much I like the way it looks. I would much prefer an “upper limit” size than a smaller bike

My upper limit bike, another all day rider! 64cm

t2p

just an observation

in addition to the difference between saddle and stem height

the the hoods / brake levers are positioned very low due to the handlebar (shape of the drops) … rotating the bars up a tad would make a slight difference - but not enough to offset shape of the drops

TLaurent 

The C&V world is traditionally focused on seat tube length which is a fairly good standard reference for frame fit. I follow the guidance provided on the Selle Italia site for saddle height (ground to groin x 0.883 in cm=distance from center of crank to top of saddle). Therefore, seat post adjustments can make most frames fit, though you must not go too far as my 5’11” 175lb self once ruined a nephew’s BMX by over-extending the seat post so much that the frame cracked. Standard top tube length is not as well established and although varying stem lengths can provide flexibility to extend a smaller frame, you can’t solve a long reach very well. I personally get lower back pain riding frames that are even 1cm too long. Therefore, smaller frames are more easily made to fit better than larger ones.

AdventureManCO 

I remember seeing pictures of you riding this bike in another thread and thinking 'Whoa...that is a small bike!' but I bet it's a rocket. I wonder if a shorter top tube helps make up for the drastic drop between the saddle height and the bars.

This thread took off in a way I didn't expect. I'm glad to see so many varying thoughts and ideas. Some say they lean small-to-ideal, and others ideal-to-large. The thoughts about balance, and weight distribution are probably where it's at. Also, the comment about proper saddle setback seems to be an important piece of advice, and well worth heeding. Likewise, BB location compared to the rest of the frame (saddle and bars). Sounds like the best approach is: try it out, if it is adjusted within reason and comfortable, rock on. If something feels off, adjust. If it still feels off, move the bike on. I used to have a Miyata 710, from around '86 I believe. Was actually my first vintage bike. I think it was about 58-59cm. I ended up in discomfort on that bike for some reason, and it was likely that it was at my upper limit or just beyond it. Therefore, I'm going to play around at the other side of the spectrum and see how small we can go, to set the range, so-to-speak.

I'll be interested to see if I'm able to pick up this bike, if I can get it to work. Like I said, if not, it will be the perfect ride for either the wife or one of the kids (even though the wife doesn't like riding and the kids are still growing). The little Novara gives me hope...the goofy bar setup notwithstanding, I did adjust the saddle to reflect the exact measurement of the Guerciotti that seems to feel really great, and the saddle placement seems spot on, so really, its dealing with the goofy bars. I'm not even that worried about toe overlap - I compared it to my Ironman in 57cm, and the IM's front wheel was actually closer to the cranks that the little Novara. I didn't take an exact measurement, but I think it was around 4" or so, whereas the IM was around 3-3.5".

And RiddleOfSteel I did notice what you also mentioned! That with the wheel clearances, you actually are getting more frame for your buck than what it looks like, especially on a bike with big clearances like a Miyata 1000.

merziac

So I don't know what the proper technical term would be but as I read this 2 more terms came to mind, "spinning plates" and "princess and the pea", maybe clowns on stilts, the perception of being perched up on a jacked up seatpost with stem/bars to match which I am very familiar with, especially when I have my bars further up than most.

I find many of my setups before my big bikes were often too noodley which I like if not too chaotic.

Dave Levy tried to explain some of this when we built the Strawberry and had to split the difference to keep the frame size down so that I will hopefully be able to keep riding it till/to the end of the line.

Once I made the crossover I can feel the wishy washy looking at some setups. I fully realize the proportional disparity seems to work ok in many cases but I can really tell that for me the proper big ones make a huge difference for me now.

The big ones are more stable and I think that didn't used to matter as much, but it does now.

repechage

before “technomic” stems, the goofies were just not possible, unless a guy fitted Schwinn “rams horn” handlebars.

bigger bikes often had longer top tubes, as gravity strikes back, not as comfortable. 25-35mm of shrinkage in the spine is pretty common.

What big bikes do have are longer front centers. That can help comfort and stability. Plenty of other elements can counteract that, but a reasonable generalization.

rccardr 

Suggestions for continued conversation:
1) You guys all know about ‘’front weighting’, right?
2) When in the ‘typical and most comfortable’ riding position, look down. The handlebar should completely obscure the front axle.
3) BB drop should be contemplated.

Discuss.

jdawginsc 

Height of stem relative to seat height. I would have to buy a whole lot of Technomic stems to be able to survive two hours.

Thats probably why I ride the hoods.

Classtime 

Maybe…
Buy the bike you want at a good price.
Make the nece$$esary changes to get a good fit.
Post pictures of your work.
If some of us say, “That frame is too small for you.” Sell it and move on.

merziac

That's what I did and still ride the hoods, the Technomic's facilitate it.

squirtdad

you just jinxed the N+1 karma

squirtdad

I have not tried riding a "too small" frame, but did have a De Rosa that was just a bit too big, such that the ride was good but not magic.

I do think that many people do not have their saddle high enough

what person could do is is take measurements of their best fitting/feeling bike and see what it takes to duplicate on a smaller frame....

IIRC jamesdak has something like yard sticks set so the he can do an initial fit of an bike really fast Also good set of measurements to take is found on the kirkframeworks site

Kontact 

2 can work okay for typical road bikes and typical riders, but clearly stops working the moment you have a bike with a long or short front center, or long or short arms or neck. At that point there is no reason for the hub, bar and your eyes to be in a straight line.

And 2 is supposed to be in the drops. Do it on the tops and you'll end up with a 60mm stem.

bikingshearer 

Yup, this sounds familar. The older I've gotten, the bigger my frames have gotten. A too small frame just won't get it done anymore.

In 1992, I bought a brand-new 59cm Bridgestone RB-1. I could get the seat up high enough and, even with the stock Ritchey stem, I split time about evenly between the hoods and the drops, and I descended in the hooks. Fast forward to 2023, and there is no way I could ride that bike comfortably now. Nowadays, 62cm ctc is the minimum and 64cm or 65cm is better. I still need a Technomic stem (actually, the Nitto Tallux that Rivendell sells - Technomic height with higher end finish and looks) to get the bars up to were I need them, more or less level with the saddle. Even with that, I am on the hoods or tops most of the time and only occasionally in the drops. I descend on the hoods. All this is because because my neck will no longer tolerate my being in the drops for very long or in the hooks for more than about 15 seconds. (It's also why I now insist on aero brake levers on everything, period, regardless of whether they are period appropriate or not - braking from the hoods with non-aero levers takes too much effort and is too hard on my hands.)

Two more data points. I had a 1972-ish Cinelli, 60cm. It rode fine, but not great. It has been moved along and I now have two mid-1960s Cinellis set up different ways, both 64cm, both able to get the bars up to very close to level with the saddle, and both ride great.

I also had a 59cm 1960 Bianchi Competizione that was literally a barn find c.1973. It was my first step up from a bike-boom special. I rode it for a year or two BITD, than stripped it down and didn't build it up again until 2014 or so. I rode it in two Erica CAs (the Paso Robles 40 mi routes), and it was . . . . tolerable, but just barely. It was just too small and too cramped, and no amount of futzing with seat post or stem was going to change that. I finally sold the frame earlier this year at a swap meet.

All of this is anecdotal evidence to make of what you will. To piggy-back on nlerner's thought, this advice is worth exactly what you are paying for it.