Man... you must have some long legs to ride a 60 @ 5'6". I am 5'10" and I would not even touch a 60. I like my cajones...

I go big on frame sizes. In fact, rather too big than too small. I ride for the sake of working out with the fastest cadence I can hold at any given time, but I also prefer longer rides to shorter. A workable compromise for sizing for me is to choose a large frame, stick the bars slightly below saddle level, then tweak everything until it looks good enough to post a pic here.

My inseam is 34", or 82cm from crank center to top of saddle. This translates to 64cm seattube with handle bars slightly more than elbow to fingertip distance from the nose of the saddle.

It should be pointed out that some frames vary even when they state they are any given same size. A person at my LBS once told me an American 52 cm is larger than an Italian 52. Also, much has to be considered in the way of geometry. A steeply angled larger frame could feel and react more quickly than a smaller frame with more shallow angles.

Up to the point where you just can't stand over a frame, or the frame is halfway down your thigh, standover height is not that important. Angles and top tube length should be the concern. Seat tube should be next in importance.

As an aside, I believe smaller frames are better for racing, and larger are better for non-racing applications. But as is, after about 5 miles, I personally can't tell the difference between a smaller and larger frame whether racing or touring.

Me too

I was completely mystified by bicycle fit until I read this.

It turns out I like a "competitive fit" if I'm going on a short ride like, say, under 50 miles. I'm thin enough and flexible enough that the better aerodynamics and aggressive position make for a lot of fun; so I am comfortable enough on a 55 cm frame (and a really long seatpost).

But that's murder on a long ride. After 50 miles like that my neck starts to suffer, and past the 100 mile mark I'm riding no-hands as much as I can, just to avoid having to bend my neck any more. Not a very safe thing to do! So for a long ride I prefer the French fit. But judging by the way my neck felt on a couple long rides (120-150 miles) earlier this year, I'm starting to think even a 60 cm frame is a little small. So for long days in the saddle, I'm going to try to pick up a 62 cm frame, and see how that works for the long rides. Otherwise... well, for really long rides, you can't beat a recumbent!

+1 I found the fit calculator results to be very insightful and confirmed a good deal of my own conclusions based on years of tinkering around with fit on a variety of bikes.

https://www.competitivecyclist.com/za...LCULATOR_INTRO

I'm a lanky 5'11. My main rides are a 59cm Motobecane and a 21" Cannondale MTB. Both have copious amount of seatpost showing (Over 8" - had to change to a longer seatpost on the Moto just to get that precious extra inch.) The top tube on the Moto leaves me feeling a bit too stretched out. (Don't have the measurement handy, and the 1984 Catalog page doesn't give top tube length).

I found a 1980 Centurion Super LeMans frame at the scrap yard the other weekend. Best I can figure is its a 62cm. With 27 x 1 1/4 Pasela TG's installed theres maybe a cm of clearance between me and the top tube when standing over it. (Measured standover height around 35 inches). The top tube is however several cm shorter than the Moto's.

I'm excited to build up this new frame to see how it fits me. I'm thinking the larger frame might allow me to use the "Fist full of seat post" rule and actually have it work.

That article on fit that rhm cites doesn't go far enough. If little old ladies still rode bikes in the US, they'd need a class for themselves. And there are tons of other riding styles and needs.

I go both ways. (Get your mind out of the gutter.) I'm 5'9" with short legs and a long torso. I met Craven Moarhead yesterday, and we have almost the same build and dimensions. By great coincidence, we have the same bike, too, though his is a 23" and mine is a 21". I normally ride 22" or 23" bikes, but I'm often OK on a 21". I wasn't OK until I changed the handlebars from drop to upright. I guess I don't like to bend down too much, though I don't mind a long reach.

We noticed that my bike feels like a much more eager climbing bike, though, so there's another thing to weigh in when you're making these decisions.

May we see pictures of you on your bikes?

I prefer something between the the "French" fit and the "Eddy" fit. Guess that would be the "Freddy" fit.

True, but I think the article in question was about bikes with drop bars and so, which mainly comes down to the relative position of a drop bar vis-a-vis the seat,. Other types of handlebars, not to mention entirely different frame styles etc (what about recumbents?) will have different ways of sitting and therefore different ways of fitting.

I ride a Peugeot PSV with a frame sized at 56cm which sounds a bit large for a guy my height at 5'-8 1/2". It all came down to my body proportions which goes long legs, short upper torso and long arms. The bike feels very comfortable for me and seems to let my body function at it's most efficient on the bike. It might be also that I prefer the more laid-out, horizontal position for my upper body when cycling.
What's interesting is, my other bike that I'm currently restoring (Haven't ridden it yet) is a smaller 52cm size. I'm sure that I will be pulling out the seatpost more on this one to fit into it, but I'm a little worried that the shorter stem might make it feel a bit cramped for my arms/torso (100 instead of the PSV's 110). I guess if Andy Schleck can ride such small sized bikes that look like miniature clown's bikes under him, I can make this one work too!(??)

Chombi
84 Peugeot PSV
85(?) Vitus Carbone Plus 7

I was curious, so I went to the wrench science website, and put in measurements and it spit back a frame size of 57cm center to center, 59cm center to top.

That seems short to me for sure....I'm 6'4", 33" pant inseam; bike inseam of 34.5"-35" depending on the day, and I wear a 36 sleeved shirt.

The best two books i have found for sizing a bike are the Lemond book & the Compitition Bicycle book.

That's interesting, cause I thought that most people over 6'-0" tall fit best towards the 60cm and above frame sizes. I thought I was pushing it with a 56cm with my height, but I guess it can go both ways. Myabe you could give the bigger sizes at least a try. You know there are still lots of great C&V finds and bargains out there at and above the 60cm frame sizes. The medium sized "good" stuff is getting to be very rare these days

Chombi
84 Peugeot PSV
85(?) Vitus Carbone Plus 7

I have longer legs than most folks my size, short torso, long arms. Makes for an interesting bike fit and enabled many a single-leg and double-leg takedown in younger days of scholastic wrestling.

Like sykerocker, if the bike is hard to come by, I'll make it fit. The bb says "60x63.5" and I make it fit with an 80mm stem mounted low, about 4" of seatpost showing, saddle forward. It works, and I ride the drops.

My tri-bike is a 50cm, modern, but those bars, etc really make it's size irrelevant, it fits.

All my other road bikes are 56cm, though "56cm" seems to differ a bit from Cannondale to Kestrel to Centurion. I use a zero-setback post on one Centurion with DT shifters and slight rando bars, since this makes shifting a little easier and the rando bars tend to pull me forward.

I've spent time and money trying to get 54cm Centurions to fit, with no luck, and it was tough to part with the Prestige but I just couldn't ride it. I was going to try a 54cm C&V tri-bike, inspired by sjpitts, but one tri-bike is enough, kind of like having a stranger in your midst......

The people in the Recumbent subforum would find this thread amusing; from what I hear about those pedalboats, you do a quick seat-to-crank adjustment and you're good for a double century with no discomfort.

I worked in a shop that carried Torpados during the brief 1982ish period that somebody was importing them. The importer, probably out of ignorance of the fact that bikes in the U.S. market usually came in 2-inch/5-cm size increments, brought them in in the full size runs, meaning that we were selling bikes in one-centimeter size increments starting at about $350. We'd send customers out on a 53, 54, and 55; they'd come back slack-jawed, amazed that each 1-cm size change made a night-and-day difference. Too bad that most bike shops didn't get it. Imagine if 1-cm sizing had caught on.

Great point.

What kind of day-and-night difference?

Good idea, Chuckk.

This thread could not have surfaced at a better time. I have spent the past month trying to fit a special bicycle to me. I usually ride 54-56cm(c-c). I recently found a 52cm Italian Masi and I am close to making it fit but I am beginning to think that it will never happen.



As you can see in the picture, the bars are sitting pretty low compared to the saddle - too low for my taste. I am hoping that a 10-15mm shorter reach steering stem will help. If not, I am out of ideas and prepared to admit that if its too small, its too small. Anyone want to buy a 1971 Masi Gran Criterium with a full Nouvo Record grouppo(or trade me something of equal value in my size)?

You mean like this? Sorry, this is the setup I've been using since 1974. But I won't say a word about what you're riding unless it's solicited.

oldbobcat, is that a sewing machine table behind the bike? I have an antique like that. The family computer sits on it. We pedal while we compute.

I have short legs and long arms. So either ride a 'big' bike, or run a long stem.
My most comfortable bike is my Azuki, which is short compared to my other bikes, but has a long top tube, it was also set up perfectly for me when I took it for a test ride.

Most often, when I pick up a 55 or 56, all I have to do is lower the saddle a bit and it's ready to ride. Smaller frames, I need to swap to a longer stem. Works out because most riders I buy bikes from seem to like a lot more difference between saddle and bar than I do, so dropping the saddle moves it to the right relationship.

Ken.

One day I set out to fit my wife’s bike for her. At 5’7” she’s 3 inches shorter than me but her legs are the same length as mine and her torso much shorter. She had smaller frame that looked about right for her so I started by adjusting the saddle. Since her legs are the same length as mine, I figured if I adjusted it for me it should be in the ball park so that’s where I started. She took a quick spin in front of the house and complained the seat was WAAAY to high. I thought about it. Hmmm. Ok, her feet are much smaller than mine and I forgot to take that into account. I lowered the saddle a bit. Nope, still much too high. Hmmm. I watched her ride. Her feet were horizontal all the time rather than pointed down like mine. I adjusted the saddle lower. Still too high. I watched again. She was pedaling with her insteps over the spindles. Failing to convince her that this is not correct, I adjusted the saddle lower still. Another test ride. Still too high. WTH? Again I watched her ride. It looked correct. Even allowing that her feet weren’t pointed down or positioned properly over the pedals, she had a nice smooth pedal stroke, her legs bent slightly at the knee at the furthest extension and no side to side rocking. Why, I asked, did she still feel the saddle was much too high? And the answer? Because she couldn’t put her feet on the ground when she stopped. Well damn, I guess I hadn’t taken that into account. It never occurred to me that anyone would want to put their feet down when they stopped.

For my own fit, at 5’10” with a 30” inseam and a long torso, my vintage bikes are all in the 22”- 23” range. (56cm – 58.5cm). On the 23” I have zero standover clearance but otherwise it is perfectly comfortable and I prefer it for longer rides. I've never really understood the whole standover thing - I never standover the top tube with both feet on the ground. When I stop I unclip my left foot, lean the bike slightly to the left and put one foot down. That gives me plenty of standover clearance. My modern bikes are fitted at around 54.5cm but have proportionally longer top tubes and a bit of rise to the stem so except for more seatpost sticking out and more standover clearance they are about the same fit.