Hey Guys,
I have a 33" inseam all my bikes are 31-32" from the ground to the top tube. The LBS near work tells me that's too tall a bike for me. This sounds way wrong to me, I've had some of my bikes for over 30-40 years. Are they right? Have my bike been way too tall for me? They tell me I shouldn't have a bike over 30" from ground to top tube. Looks like I need a new LBS to go to.

Mike

Was the guy at the LBS a kid? I was talking with one who kept telling me the 21 inch old frame (I am 5'6" with a 29 inch inseam) I had ridden comfortably for years and toured on and commuted on and had adjusted just so was 'too big' for me.

I "get it" that new frame sizes are different but if they don't understand how to fit the classics they should maybe use you as an opportunity to learn something.

You said it yourself!

Normally I ride a 60, but the kid at the bike store said it is way too big for me, and tried to sell me this new fangled compact frame bike:

It seems to me that standover is a poor criterion for sizing a frame. Top tube length, as Sheldon Brown recognized, is much more important, and for me, getting the bars to a height that I'm comfortable with, and doesn't have 22 cm of stem out of the head tube, is also key. With threaded stems, this is only possible by using a taller frame than people want to sell you nowadays. With threadless, OK, but you've got to get to the bike before someone's cut the steerer down.

One of my rides is one where there's no way I clear the top bar if straddling the bike upright -- the answer is “don't stand the bike upright” and I'm perfectly comfortable on it. I don't feel like I'm fighting the bike at all. I like older English frames because they tend to have shorter top tubes, even when the height of the frame is taller: bike referred to is 63 x 57. French and Italians preferred a longer top tube, in general, with Japanese and Americans somewhere in between, depending on who they were copying. For someone high-waisted/long-legged/normal-armed, that means looking for stems with really short extension, which is easier said than done, in the used bike marketplace.

Thanks very good info .

If by inseam, you mean pant size, I think you are fine. Why are you letting some minimum wage LBS employee try and convince you that your 40 years of experience is wrong. The geometry of bikes is totally different today. Someone who has only been selling bikes for 5 years probably has no idea how to fit a bike with classic geometry. I was trying out some new bikes recently and noticed this for myself. My bikes all are set up almost exactly the same, yet one is a 60, one is a 62 and one is a 24". The road bikes have about a 2" drop from saddle to bars.
I test road a Jamis Xenith in a size 58. This is supposed to be their race geometry, yet adjusted correctly, there was less than 1" drop. The same held true for a Madone. I would have had to remove all of the spacers to get it down to 2".
So for a new bike, the salesman may have been right.

Correct stand over = Does not exist.

I have very short legs for my height, and long arms and torso. So if I size for standover, I end up with a really small, cramped, frame.

Lazy bike shop people use stand over for sizing, and newbie bicyclists seem fixated with standover.

The general advice is to ride the largest wheel diameter you can straddle.

tcs

Thanks guys the reason I asked is that I was looking at a 2010 Raleigh Record Ace in 59cm. I haven't bought anew bike in years this salesman. Was really pushy on size and stand over size.

LBS know nothing, or they're too blinded by compact frames to know any better. 32" inseam here, and many of my machines hit the 31" mark, if not the 32". I never feel it nor hurt myself on 'em. The slightest angling of the frame when dismounting takes care of that.

That said though, the 2010 RRA is a compact frame. A 58/59cm ST example will likely have a much longer top tube than you expect. Compact frame sizing is completely different from traditional. Size your frame based on your preferable effective top tube length; not the seattube length.

-Kurt

P.S.: I saw you riding the 23" (ST) Armstrong a few days ago. The fit looked fine. Don't change the winning combo.

P.P.S.: You wouldn't happen to have spoken to an arrogant little, glasses-wearing, hipster clod at Bike Tech on Bird Rd., eh? I generally get along with everyone else, but I flatly refuse to deal with that jerk. I have no trouble admitting that to his face either - that's how much of a creep he is.

+1 I have 2 rides like that and I agree completely...not an issue.

Size the bike by how it feels while you're riding it. Not by how it feels for the 2% of the time you spend standing still.

Like has been mentioned before, top tube length is way more important. I've got a bike with a compact frame and 53.5ish cm TT as well as the Bianchi that has more like a 55 or 56 cm TT. Both fit me very well. The standover on the two is reallly different. Standover has essentially no sway over bike fit (to a point, obviously) because there are so many different designs.

I do have to angle the larger bike over a little to mount it, but whatever, it screams.

My one "modern" bike is a 2006 Specialized Sequoia. I had originally bought a 2004 model, but it was too small to be comfortable. The first one was a "Large" and the more comfortable one was an "Extra Large". I had to get a shorter stem for it and now it is perfect. On traditional bikes I ride a 24 or 25 inch frame and can be reasonably comfortable. I am sure the LBS guy would say I need a 23 inch but that is very uncomfortable.

I think you need to use what you think is comfortable.

Thanks for the coments on the Armstrong . It needs just a few more adjustments and a really nice Nervar crankest I got from chris. Perfect chrome and looks perfect. The Le Tour will be out of the paint shop next week . The color was inspired by one of your bikes.

Wow, a single, wide tires. cased chain, platform pedals, little shorty mudguard, straight steel fork, room on that saddle to slide back and climb or get down on the rivet - very trendy!

You'll want a 24 PBR messenger bag to go with that!

When I was in college (late 70s) I worked at a bike shop and I was taught how to fit bikes by the shop owner who had been in the business for a 1,000 years (OK, not that long really) and then once more between jobs worked briefly at a shop and then when I got into triathlons I attended a fit clinic and learned some more and what I learned along the way was that preference was a crucial parameter and perhaps the most challenging to evaluate.

Everyone has a fit range, they can ride several different size bikes depending upon their preference and use and intended purpose of the bike. I have also a 33 inch cycling inseam (like the OP) and I set my saddles typically at 75.5cm average and I ride a 56 square bike, 56cm c/c tt and 56cm c/c st ideally but, I come from a competition background and like go fast bikes with a lot of saddle to bar drop, others may not want such an aggressive machine, therefore the preference variable. My smallest bike, a track bike is a 54cm st and 55 tt and my largest bike is a 58 st and 58 tt and it does feel big to me but also is comfortable over distance as I am able to get the bar a bit higher with it and the roomy cockpit gives me room to reposition more so than on what I have traditionally considered my personal ideal size (56 square).

However, IMO, based on very little input, I would say a 59cm bike is marginal, if not too large, and I would probably try to size you down to a 56 or 57 at least. If you have a 33 inch cycling inseam and normal proportions (ideal mesomorph, lol), I would say a 57cm square in a traditional frame is correct but with the compact frames with sloped tubes, look at an effective tt of about 56 to 57cm. Your bike size choices, to me, again based on little input, seem a bit to the high end of your acceptable fit range, your preference perhaps--but--at some point, a bike does become too big and you may be about there on the 59cm.

Don't fixate on frame label sizes, look at the effective tt length.

I think it also depends on use. I had a 60cm frame, when I usually ride a 58. I barely touched with stand-over. City riding, a car ran a light, slipped on a pedal, and contact with the top tube. Wouldn't want to experience that again.

I do think some room for standover is a good idea. If you're riding a frame where you do not clear the top tube - hate to say it, but it's a matter of time/luck.

You're talking about TT length, correct? Makes all the difference in the world; OP might read this and think it's related to seattube length.

-Kurt

I think it's weird that there are all these metrics, calculations and theory based on the length of one's legs; and virtually nothing addressing the length of torso and arms, hand size, shoulder width -- all the upper body stuff. My guess is because it's harder to make a rule or equation about a really complex relationship with too many variables. But when it comes down to it, the problems I have aren't with bike height (that's easy to adjust by raising or lowering seatpost), but with the space between where I sit and where I plant my hands. Seat rails don't provide much adjustment, and buying new stems is somewhat expensive. So one of my dream products is a really high-quality adjustable-extension stem, that looks like a million. Come on Rivendell/Nitto or V-O, I think there's a marketing opportunity here!

For my own preference, I don't buy the notion of standover clearance as a primary sizing criterion. My trousers inseam happens to be 30"; my physical inseam measured from crotch to floor in thin-soled shoes is ~33", and 33" is also the height of the top tubes of my classic framed bikes. Size-wise my bikes fit me perfectly for riding, nor is straddling the top tube an issue, for that matter. I have ridden this size off frame (off & on) for the past 32 years. So there.

As I am aging, if find that a larger frame suits me better. To correct the longer top tube I use a shorter stem and I'm able to keep the handle bars a seat level or an inch drop on the bars which is much better for me now.

I don't stand over my bike.

Fit = comfort = speed for 99% of riders.

+100, Can't Top That

Yes, I thought I was making that clear, thank you for clarifying for me, thanks, I would agree.

And I also think I made it clear that I was making some fit assumptions based on his 33 inch cycling inseam and being a normal (mesomorphic) body/arm/leg proportions. You know, you cannot fit people using a Bell Curve via the internet, lol, yeah, most of us fall in the top of the bell but, well, take a look at a Bell Curve, there are people on each extreme, if everybody was right in the middle there would be no "art" to fitting and it would be much easier. I made an assumption about the OP that he was in that big middle of the curve and extrapolated from there and he can evaluate what I said as helpful or not.