Does standover really matter, or...
 

...to put it another way, is it OK if the TT contacts the "boys" just a little?

It's just that, see, I'm short. Not quite East Hill(TM) short, but close. And it's really a PITA having to limit myself to 19"/49cm frames when there are nice 20"/50cm frames out there that might just be an inch or less too "big". Especially if the TT length seems OK & won't stretch my old torso out like Superman.

tt length + stem length is the primary thing I care about when doing bike fittings. as long as youre careful when you hop off the saddle to not hurt yourself you should be okay.

I have a couple bikes that are "too big" for me, including a couple of my favorites. I can't comfortably stand over Shadowfax, or my Fuji, or my Long Haul Trucker. All I care about is that I can dismount safely, and that I'm comfortable in the saddle.

Get a mixte :D

Same situation, my bikes that fit me well (riding) are just a bit too high in standover. But no problems yet ... I'm never actually standing over the TT, I'm resting one foot on the ground while one is in the pedal.

Having SLLTS (Short Legs Long Torso Syndrome), I can never have clearance. The top tube length is the most important. It would be nice to have a frame that I can easily stand over, but I'd rather be comfortable while riding.

Same situation for me. If you're spending a good chunk of time standing over your top tube, something is wrong!

Neal

I"ve got a couple that I can't stand over flat-footed. No problems.

Simple answer: No.

Stand over height is something that they only started worrying about comparatively recently, in fact it pretty much matches when people started sueing companies because they were stupid and the company did not take that into consideration. In the old days the only thing anyone worried about was whether they could reach the pedals; and I have seen old bikes with blocks on the pedals to make that posible. If you look at some books about bicycle history you will notice that while people were shorter on average back then their bike were much bigger than today.

Personally, I like a frame that I can put one foot on the pedal and the other on the ground which makes it safe to stop at a light, If I tried to straddle it flatfooted it would be a definite "ouch!"

A few of mine are "big' by my LBS measuring standards. My Fuji Opus, Design and Raleigh Competition are all 61 cm and most of my others are 56-58 cm. I probably don't have long arms so I have to put on shorter handlebar stems such as 80 mm rather than 110 or 110 mm. I kinda like the feeling of being able to stretch out a bit on a slightly larger frame.

Scott

Almost every bike I own is 'too big' for me. I'm 5'10" on a good day with an average build except for an extra 30# or so and I'm very happy on anything in the 60-64cm range and feel cramped on most frames in the 56-59 range. As long as the package is pushed to one side and I can get a foot on the ground all is cool.

I need a very long top tube to get stretched out. With a straight top tube that is going to always put my boys in harm's way. I've also got a long torso, 6'5" wingspan and 6'2" tall. Came in useful when I was playing hoops, but had to give it up when I hurt my knee 4 years ago.

Maybe we should change this forum to the classic and vintage knuckle-draggers.

I've never felt my proportions were anything other than average (5'10", 160 lbs), but recently I had to buy a dress shirt and got fitted properly. The store employee was doubtful he could find anything for me as I have freakishly long arms and a thin neck (in terms of being fitted for an off-the-shelf dress shirt, anyway). I guess the thin neck comes from my line of work, pencil necks and all that.

Neal

Thank you all. That is what I'd suspected. Now I can widen my search! There is a nice looking 50cm Centurion Iron Man on eBay right now I'm watching (as others here are, no doubt), if I don't get the 49cm Trek frame I'm bidding on.

the whole professional fitting thing is overated imo, provided you have an idea of your reach and height requirements. I can see it if you are racing or riding a ton of miles regularly but I have managed to fit myself on 5 different bikes, none of which match exactly in frame dimensions, without being "fitted". And I have somehow managed to do long rides comfortably on them, which is my main criteria for fit, not necessarily performance.

It's really hard for me to believe that you would fit over a 49cm frame but not a 50. I think that ideally, you want standover, but, it doesn't have to be an exact thing, just enough that you can straddle it with your feet on the ground. You straddle a frame with your pubic bone, not your boys.

Also, when I hear 49 cm, I immediately think of a European frame measured centre to centre. That's actually about the same or a little taller than a 50 cm frame measured centre to top.

There was a time when it was common for bike manufactures would raise the bottom bracket instead of lowering the to top tube to make a bike fit. The seat post would be the correct length but the raised BB allowed them to shorten the top tube with less tire interference.

Within reason you should be fine. I would be more concerned about reach. If you have to put the seat too far forward you will get into a bad riding position for your knees and/or you will have a tendency to to sit on the nose of the seat and put the hurt on down there. I ride bikes a little short for my legs because most of my height is in my legs. I have a 35inch inseam but only 6ft tall. That makes my comfortable reach more in line with somebody about 5'10".

I think frames with a horizontal TT are still designed this way.

+1 The 1981 Voyageur 11.8 I picked up recently came in three sizes, 21 inch, 23 inch, and 25 inch. So I guess back then a 23 inch bike was a "medium".

All my bikes are too big for me if I use standover.
So I don't stand over.

I'd rather have them too big than too small.

Fashion has changed radically over the years. As many vintage racing photos attest, riders used to go for relatively tall frames. I happily rode a too-tall Nishiki for 20 years, but the short top tube compensated somewhat. I gave my Peugeot PKN-10 to my elder son because it always felt too big, even after I installed a minimum-reach stem. (Its top tube was significantly longer than the Nishiki's, and this influenced my emotional perception of the height of the top tube.)

Fortunately, both Capos and my Bianchi fit me perfectly, with 55cm C-T seat tubes just barely providing standover clearance and top tubes giving me a 45-degree back angle with my hands on the hoods. Since my right forearm is at least a cm shorter than my left, I have to compromise my longitudinal fitting, much as those of you with unequal leg lengths have to compromise your seat height adjustment.

I am 6' and can stand over 33 1/2" which means I can ride a 60cm horizontal tt frame. I had one and it just felt too big. I prefer a 57 or 58c, with 32 1/2 so height. Maybe I like it because it handles quicker?
I am not an expert just know what feels right.

That works for me.