Too big for your britches
 

Some how I seem to acquire frames that are slightly too big but build them up anyways. I think I'm so used to riding bikes that were too big since smaller frames were hard to come by(48-50cm). I've just grown acustom to riding larger bikes. Nowadays it seems like if you don't have five feet of seat post showing and the handlebars so low the ends of your levers are dragging on the ground. Your riding on a frame that's completely wrong for you and should have rotten fruit and vegetables thrown at you.

Mind you I have discovered that magic frame size and measurements after being fitted but still 75% of my bikes are 2-4cm too large. Did the sloping top tube bring about the John Holmes looking seat tube lengths or just companies/shop fitting folks to smaller frames?

Am I the only one who rides too large of frames but still feel safe and comfortable riding against the grain of society?

I can ride anywhere from a 64 to a 68 so I have the opposite problem you have, not enough tall bikes out there.

No, you're not alone. There was a thread a while back, and many of us ride frames that are not our "chart" size.
Perhaps the key is not getting fitted. Ignorance may be bliss.
However, after a 100-miler on a frame with little room for error, I have to be very careful.

Bike makers, in order to save money and also because the "fit" philosphy was changing, elected to go with fewer sizes, kind of on a S/M/L/XL type of philosphy. Stems became a lot easier to swap and add, and somewhat stronger over a longer reach. Competitive riders often felt a smaller frame weighed less and was stiffer than a larger frame, and adapted to that. I think there were lots of reasons.

My LBS will fit you using his charts and will monitor you as needed, but lets you try them out under his watchful eye.
Another LBS not far away has about 50 stems in stock specfically for fitting customers. I think it's just what they try to get it done right.

Both of those shops, to their credit, do not try to mandate your fit.
They give you literature and do their best, but how it feels is up to you.

I've seen shops that will fit you to whatever bike is in stock. That seems pretty convenient.

rest assured, you are not alone. my favorite frame is a 57cm and i'm 5'8". the top tube is just low enough to stand over with my biking shoes on. the amount of seatpost showing is, as you noted, not very fashionable these days being barely a handful. but i enjoy the comfort of the tall top tube when resting at a light. no squatting necessary...

The charts say that I should ride a 60cm but the 60s I've run across have felt too big. I tend to ride 58s. I haven't figured out why yet.

If the too large of a frame proponents rode a properly fitted bike in the right size I think they would change their tune.

The sloping TT makes for a shorter ST and requires the seat post to be raised high compensate.

With me it is either too big or too small.
I bought my 23" International new in '74. I don't even remember "fitting" it. It was the prettiest bike in the shop, and I rode it for years, happily.
I am now riding a 58cm Bridgestone, and it seems a bit big. So what falls into my lap? a 50cm Miyata 710.
Should I smash them together and get the 54cm that I think I need?

Some of my bikes are a little big for me but I have set them up so I can ride them comfortably anyway. I used to have quite a few bikes but I sold off the all the bikes that were a little bit small for me - even if it was 1cm too small. I just can't ride a bike that is a little small and cramped.

my other frames (4) are all smaller and i don't like them as much. one of which is a custom and fitted by a pro.

i should mention that all frames regardless of size have the same saddle to bb length and same reach. all have same pedals, seat and handlebars too.

Seems the best finds are always a few cm too large or too small, keeps us looking and dreaming

I can ride anything from a 58 to a 64 but I'm happiest on a 62 or 63. I prefer a shortish top tube, slightly undersquare, with a longish stem, to get a little more weight out front and kind of pre-load the fork slightly. They tell me this is more toward the "French Fit," and I would like to try to get a 64 or 65 cm frame to really explore the possibilities of this.

Sloping top tubes look bloody stupid on road bikes. It is a bogon of marketing bunk, designed to turn in low weights at the expense of comfort and rideability, IMO.

I started out way back with a bike that was too big.

The current range of road bikes I ride are between 53 and 57 cm, but the top tubes are of a much smaller range, 55 to 56.25 cm. I find that more meaningful.

If I was racing, I would be on a custom, as in today's bike world all would place me on a 53 cm... and all advise I need a longer stem, most of the frames today seem to be 53.5 or 54 cm in the effective top tube length. I am not sold on having so much weight forward.

I seem to prefer frames that are a little bigger than the "prevailing wisdom" would recommend. I'm 5'8" on a good day, but 56-58cm frames feel just right. :D

- Scott

I have found that cockpit length is by far the factor that makes a bike fit me properly. Any bike with a 53-54 toptube, and 100-110mm stem seems to be the ticket, while seat tube length can vary from 50 to 55 and I barely notice. saddle-to-bar drop varies depending on the type of riding the bike in question is meant for; more dop for racing, less for cruising and commuting.

I ride 48-50 cm bikes, but have one frame in 51/52 with fatty tires not designed for the bike. Not much clearance at all, but I have never found clearance to be a problem (within reason of course). As long as I can comfortably stand over the bike with a slight tilt and it has a top tube within my range, I don't worry about the "on-paper" size of the bike.

If a person is fitted and those results do not bring back a number for your ridable range then the fitting was not done right as most human being can ride with a certain range and be very comfortable. For me 52-56 is that range for road bikes and this explains why my smallest bike was a 52st / 54 tt with a 100mm stem and a Merckx fit and my largest road bike is 55.5 square with an 80mm stem and a French fit.

I have enough reach to ride larger frames than this but do like to meet than minimum stand over requirement.

Champion City and I were able to switch fixed gear bikes on a ride as my 52/54 bike and 54/54cm bikes were very close save for saddle heights and do believe he liked the fit on my Gran Sport enough to hand me my ass.

A lot of sizing is completely based on the style of the moment. Back in the 70's, we'd set you up with a bike by having you straddle the top tube. Ideal fit was being able to lift the front wheel off the ground and go for 1.5-2" air between the tyre and the pavement. Given that most bikes back then were done in 2" size increments (until you got to the double butted frames where it would usually drop to an inch), as long as you cleared the top tube you were good. Setting up the seat height was done in your stocking feet. At full leg extension, you'd want about 1/2" air space between your heel and the top of the pedal. The foot was expected to stretch down at the low point on the pedal stroke. And, if you had the seat high enough that you could grab the seatpost in your fist and still see seatpost, you went up one frame size.

I find the old ways still work for me just fine. I'm 5'10-1/2", with a 32" jeans inseam (yeah, we'd work off of that as virtually all customers had no idea of their actual, physical inseam) and normally ride a 56cm. However, I'm about comfortable on a 54, a 58 is my second choice, and there's one 60 hanging on the wall that's ridden regularly - and it works just fine for me. 54 is definitely my minimum, 60 is physically my maximum (little matter of clearing while dismounting). And when you're talking vintage, you've got to leave yourself a little wiggle room on frame sizes, as that bike you've always dreamed of owning will invariably become available on size large or small, but almost never in your preferred size.

Now, go into a bicycle shop today and take my first paragraph description with you . . . . . . . . and they'll look at you like your nuts.

Preach!

I'm between 5'7" and 5'8", with a 31.5" cycling inseam (PBH), and the key number for me is the top tube length, whether it's a tradional road bike or a modern road bike. The key for a comfortable fit for me is a top tube length or effective top tube length between 54cm and 55cm.

Usually, bikes with top tubes of this length will be called a 54 by the frame's manufacturer, although I have two touring bikes that meet my criteria for top tube length but one of the bikes is called a 52 and the other is called 53 by the mfr. Both bikes are extremely comfortable to me. I test rode a new road bike today that's labeled a 55 and the effective top tube length is 54.9 cm. The fit was very good; the bike is designed for long distance comfort and the longish top tube (for me) felt great, although the tall headtube undoubtedly had something to do with that.

I run 100mm stems on almost all of my bikes, and for racing bikes, I set them up with the same cockpit length and very similar saddle to bar drop whether it's a traditional style frame (horizontal top tube) or a modern, sloped tube bike.

The key is that once you know what works for you, be aware of the key measurements to look for that will allow you to get your optimum fit on the bike, whatever it is.

I'm 6" tall and riding a 53 right now; the steerer is cut a bit long and a normal height 80cm stem is just tall enough. About 1.5 fists of seatpost are exposed. It clearly looks a bit short for me, but it feels very comfortable and easy to handle. I think I just like a short TT and the smaller frame is the easiest way to get that.

I'd really love to look up my height on a few charts and build a bike exactly as recommended, just to try it out and see.

That is pretty drastic! Do you have a pic of your bike?

Is the size stamped on the frame? Or do I have to use a tape?

I rode a 1975 Peugeot UO8 with a 24 inch (61cm) frame size for years (34 inch standover). I have a 31 inch bicycle inseam.... Anymore, I stick with 55cm to 57cm frames. I've also got a 52cm Waterford Paramount. Really way too small for me, but it was a good deal, and I don't see many Paramounts in my thrifty price range.

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6115/6...91ab1dd2_z.jpg
Here's one from the "Every Day Pics" thread. The fit doesn't look as extreme as it sounds, because modern bikes have inflated our ideas about seatpost length. It certainly doesn't look "Eddy," though.

It's about 1.5" of saddle to bar drop, BTW.