I have ridden frames with 25 inch seat tubes before. There is no clearance between my privates, but I find that taller frames and long headtubes make for a more comfy ride.

Right now I'm on a 60CM...But could probably score a 63CM bike with a Chorus groupo for a good price. The top tube is 59CM...The last frame I road with a 23 inch top tube felt radically more comfortable than a 22 inch top tube.

For those wondering...The bike is somewhat out of my price range but its 1100$ for a Waterford with Phil Hubs and a Campy Chorus group. That seems to be something to consider. Provided I can make it fit.

Top tube will be on my privates...But a fist full of seapost will likely be used. I'm running over a fist full on a 60CM frame. Oddly enough I'm only slightly over six feet. Long upper and lower body.

For me bigger has always been comfy but this might borderline too big. What are your thoughts on the classic fist full of post formula and big frames?

I'm pretty "normally" proportioned for my height 5' 9". 55 or 56 cm (ctc) seat tube with about the same top tube length and a 90 - 100 mm stem is ideal for me. I've ridden smaller (down to 52 cm), and larger (up to 59 cm), and 59 cm puts me at the upper limit of what I feel I can safely ride. Going the other way, 54 is the lower limit of what I don't feel like a clown riding.

You lost me when you went from cm to inches and back again.

1100 bones is too much for a "make it fit", IMO. I'm 5'8", short legs, long torso, I can ride a 56 to a 52, the 52 needs a long stem. I've read that you should ride the smallest frame you can comfortably ride.

try these to give you a bit more clearance.



unless you really want that Waterford this Bianchi with Athena might be a better buy
https://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...=STRK:MEWAX:IT
if he still has it he may sell for less. I think I have his email somewhere.

The frame is only absolutely "too Big" when you've got the saddle slammed all the way down, and you can't reach the pedal when its in the 6'O'clock position. If thats the case you need some of Bianchigirl's shoes.

Junk-to-Bar clearance is not a very accurate way to measure whether a frame is too big or not, really it just shows you how long your inseam is. I've got a couple of Frames I can't straddle....just lean em over at a 45 degree angle or get a running start to mount it.

25 inches = 63.5cm. So if you are comfortable with 25 inch frame, you are really close.

Google bike sizing, you will get all kinds of ideas out there.

+1 I ride a range of bikes, from a 54 (too small) to a 58 (too big). I usually ride a 56. 2cm =~ 3/4 of an inch. So we are not talking huge jumps.

+1 Every manufacturer is different. For me, Cannondales run big for a given size, Miyatas run small.

+1 $1100 is really too much for a make it fit bike. If I spent that kind of money, the bike would need to be a perfect fit. But I am on the thrifty side.

I too have really short legs, and a really long torso and arms. So I give up stand-over to gain adequate top tube length. I believe stand over height is just about the most over-rated guide to bike sizing there is.

But I can not imagine someone around 6 foot tall riding a 25 inch frame.

It all makes quite perfect sense up to this. The only reason I can see for this is that a smaller frame will be an ounce or two lighter. Not a concern if you're not a racer, or unless you're so old that you're taking body shrinkage into account. My philosophy is to aim for the middle of the range that you feel comfortable on. My thinking is that a 140 mm stem on 52 cm frame looks ridiculous, as does a seatpost that pops up a foot above the top tube. Similarly, a 70mm stem on a 59cm frame, and 3/4" of seatpost showing looks almost as foolish - not to mention, a frame in the middle of the ideal range can be much more easily adapted if your riding posture evolves.

Well, I did say "comfortably". When a frame is too small, the bars can't be positioned properly and too much weight is on the hands, regardless of stem length.

Edit: Unless you go to one of those funky looking tall stems. Personally, I wouldn't do that.

I'm with you on sizing. I also use both a 56CM and a 52CM sized frames, and with just a few differences in seatpost and stem adjusment and sizes, they both work for me very well, but I do have to mention that particular frames have particular diffrences from each other that might make some difference in terms of best fit and comfort, My 56CM PSV frame has very different geometry from my Vitus Carbone. It has very relaxed angles and maybe a longer top tube proportionally, and it also has a lower bottom bracket, so the bike feels really "roomy" and relaxed, while the Carbone feels more compact, which give it a feeling of more responsive handling, and easier/quicker to accelerate. Different bikes with different geometry and sizing, but they both still work for me very nicely.

Chombi

+10

Use of a bike is a huge factor in both sizing and adjusting (ie. determining stem size and seatpost position) a bike to "fit". For road bikes, TT length (or more accurately saddle to handlebar length) is more important that ST length. I am riding 4 road bikes that vary in size from 51 to 57 cm (ST C-C) but their TT+stem are within one or two cms. My do it all mule and long distance bike (not included in the above count), has a longer TT

As far as stand-over height goes... I suspect that a lot of men really want to avoid the possibility of an involuntary vasectomy without anesthesia in a hard stop, thus the recommendation for straddling over the TT. And, frankly, it all depends on how experienced a rider is (so he can avoid such an unfortunate close encounter with the top tube.) If you think you are good enough to deal with a close encounter, more power to you, but if you try to size a novice cyclist...

There is a flip side to the Top Tube terror that inexperienced male riders experience - and that is, on a smaller bike, one has further to fall.

The fit you describe is the way they say a bike should fit at Rivendell.

As it is, I still wonder if the saddles we ride are basically a wrong design as it relates to males. It's almost like we are just asking for the saddle noses to pound us in the worst area when we ride our bikes. There's constant competition of space in there and god knows how that eventually will hurt us. Could Lance's former "troubles" be possibly attributted to this situation?? wil we find out that the ugly SMP saddles might be the way to go in the future........yuck!

Chombi

I've got a 63cm, 25", 251/2", 271/2" & a 69cm. The 63 has a roomier cockpit than the 69. Both have 22" top tubes & the same size stems. Last week I put them side by side on a bike rack. The 69 has real laid geometry, the 63 more upright. I didn't bother measuring it but it was qute clear that the geometry had an effect on cockpit length.
Just wated to through another variable into your sizing equation

But can you mount cleats on those shoes?

Cue the old Eagles tune "Those Shoes"

Spiker is alluding to set back or seat tube angle, which guides you to a way of setting up the bike, but the saddle can be adjusted to eliminate that.

I don't know whether anyone can find a cause and effect situation with saddles, but I would suspect that those steel Brooks tensioning devices of torture, right up there on the nose of the saddle would not help...

Jest aside, a lot of it has to do with finding an appropriate saddle and riding it (well...) appropriately. Like sitting on it on your sit-bones and on the back of the saddle. If you need to lean forward, get a shorter stem and/or push the saddle railings as far forward as it is comfortable on the seatpost...

[QUOTE=Bianchigirll;10593958]try these to give you a bit more clearance.
...QUOTE]



...and then I suppose you have to make sure your bicycles bags match?

[QUOTE=BigPolishJimmy;10596465]Nah... just get some cork bar ends to match

I love the shoe thing darling...

but back to sizing,
I've been riding 60 cm frames where standover has never been an issue.
Now experimenting with a japanese Bianchi (1985ish, SuperSet tubes) that is 62 cm and has a 59.5 TT, I found I need a 13cm stem - mostly due to a steeper seat tube. Maybe I'll just push the saddle further back, before installing longer stem.

(It sure is fun playing with bikes of different tubesets, geometries, componentry, wheelsets, etc.... especially on nice lonely roads.)

It depends on the type of riding. Most people need a pretty specific reach when it comes to spending time in the saddle. Why ride a bike that is going to knock your thighs when you sprint out of the saddle? Maybe you never plan to do that so it doesn't matter. You should never push your saddle forward or back to compensate for reach, if you do and tell me it doesn't bother you one way or the other I will say you must fall into one of two broad categories, 1. you are a member of the super minuscule and lucky minority of people who can tolerate a wide range of positions or 2. you aren't really riding that much. If you fall into category one then I will tell you that your optimal power and efficiency comes from a very narrow range of saddle positions regarding for/aft and height like +/-3mm. I've worked in a shop that does comprehensive bike fitting for 3 years now and I can tell you that size matters, big time, if you are serious about riding. If you're just tooling around no it doesn't matter, but most roadies care about performance. A short stem will change the handling characteristics of a bike. I would never recommend the purchase of this bike to anyone based on your description, but that is my opinion, YMMV.

I think the "classic" formula, like "compact" frames, is just another way of putting the seat, bars, and cranks in space. Where those parts are put is determined by your skeletal dimensions and muscular flexibility. After that, you connect the dots. It doesn't matter if the tubes are straight or curled like spaghetti, if the bike doesn't fit, it doesn't fit.

Where are you? I'm trying (not very hard) to unload a couple bikes that might fit you. Have a look: https://home.comcast.net/~jeff_wills/Gallery/index.html

it has everything to do with it. Many bike fitters will tell you all that matter is stack and reach when comparing frames for sizing. Reach is a measure from the intersection of a vertical line with the TT (or virtual TT) drawn through the BB. Why is reach more relevant? Because it doesn't matter what your seat tube angle is your saddle will always be in the same fore/aft position relative to the BB for your optimal power and efficiency road bike fit and on some bikes that may mean a zero setback post and on others it may mean a setback. In fact, I cannot comfortably ride my vintage steeds for an appreciable length because being tall I require a zero offset seatpost and I can classic record on my two vintage steeds.... I also quickly learned that my shoulder problems were a result of too much length.. I always used a 120mm stem on 58-59cm TT bike with a 25mm setback post because I someone once told me I should ride that... Now I ride with zero offset posts and with a 58cm TT I need a 110mm stem... I'm about 6'3.5".