LesterOfPuppets

Yeah, I have a monster inseam @ 32.5" and the torso of a dwarf and pretty long monkey arms.

My 53cm Pinarello was the perfect size when I was young and spry. Then I got old and had to get a zero degree stem to raise the bars a bit. Would probably start shopping @ 54cm if I was shopping classic road frame right now.


Pinarello at Turtle Park by Lester Of Puppets, on Flickr

OrangeHorse

I'm a 5'7 woman with an annoyingly short inseam. My All-City is a 49 but I could have probably gone at least one size up. My Pug Mixte is a 56 and also fits fine. Totally different style bike of course.

I am dying to ride my friend's Rivendell Atlantis but it is a 62 and the top tube is way too tall.

KonAaron Snake 

Can ride with adjusting the stem/post? 52-60cm. Prefer to ride? 54-56cm.

anixi

I can ride anything from a 59cm to a 64cm, depending on the top tube, which should be between 58 and 63cm.

teetime

If it's anything over 1.5 cm in difference, I feel safe in saying you don't use the bike as designed.

Speaking of road bikes only, not cross, not 3 speeds, not mountain, just drop bar road bikes.

How many different size shoes are you comfortable in? For me it's a pretty narrow range. Bikes are the same. They fit right or they don't. I don't care how you change the stem, seat post bar drop...anything over 1.5 cm TT or ST and I say BS.

gomango

Correct info. imho

LesterOfPuppets

I can make a 57cm Pinarello fit the same as my 53, might have to use a track stem to get bars that low.

Weight distribution on the wheels would be slightly different, but I could comfortably ride either one. Might not be "as designed" as you say but still perfectly functional. I'd probably prefer the bigger one for touring or sight seeing, and the smaller one for more sporty riding.

RobbieTunes

I can ride 56cm, =/- .5cm
i.e. once you find your fit, it's your fit.
period.

Captain Blight

6'3" and I fit on everything from a 58x58 (tightly) to a 65x62 (really out there). Happiest on a 63x59-60; I'm in opening negotiations with a framebuilder for a campeur frame, I'm leaning toward 65x59 for a French fit.

smontanaro 

Same here (I think). My 58cm Masi is a touch on the small side (I'd consider swapping frames with someone having a 60cm Masi GC of similar vintage and condition), but my 61cm Bianchi is very comfortable. Well, it was until I stripped it of all its parts to build up a 62cm Medici. I hope to try that out in the next week or two.

cpsqlrwn

I'm 5-10 with a 29 inch inseam. I ride anywhere from 54 to 56 seat tube c-c but my top tube length is never less than 54 cm or more than 55 cm.

Mercian Rider

I can adapt to 56 up to 61, but 59-60 is my sweet spot. One exception is my AHH, which is a 61, but it has a lower bottom bracket than any other bike I have. The tt of the AHH with 700 x 35s is the same height as my 60 Mercian with 700 x 25s.

mkeller234

I took this picture a few days ago. Looking across all the hanging bikes, it seems like i've started to figure out size I like. I've had larger and smaller, but they have all moved on to other homes.


DSC06920 by mkeller234, on Flickr

rotharpunc

I'm 5'7 with shortish inseam. I find 51cm works most of the time but I can make anything from a 49 to a 53 work usually. Oddly, 58cm also seem to fit me, but 56, 54, etc. don't. I know, that doesn't make sense, but its true.

thinktubes 

57-58, but can ride a 56 if the TT is at least 56 and the seat tube angle is on the slack side.

In other news, this thread seems to be morphing into a post you bike thread.

rotharpunc

don't they all?

Michael Angelo 

58-62 cm.

newenglandbike

I'm 6' and would not buy a bike smaller than 62cm (if we're talking level top-tube). Tallest I can go is about 65cm, but I could definitely ride a 68, just with absolutely no seatpost showing. As for TT length, I can go 58-61 depending on bar height.

Amesja

Yup.

And a lot can be done with seatposts and stems to get the butt where it needs to be in relation to the BB, and a huge variety of stems that can get the bars in the right position in relation to the saddle & BB.

The frame is just that -a FRAME. If you can get the saddle, BB, and bars in the right relationship the frame is doing its job no matter what the "numbers" say. Those numbers do NOT tell the whole story.

Of course, if you care about how the bike "looks" then that is thrown out the window. If you want that classic "the way everyone else does it" set-up then you will be stuck getting a frame that fits in a very narrow range.

Go figure...

Stealthammer

I'm 5'9" tall with a 30" inseam and I have ridden MTBs from 13" to 19" and Road bikes from 50cm to 56cm, but I really don't regard the seat tube length as the essential measurement when I look at a bike frame. What I look at first is the top tube length, then head/seat tube angle, then standover heigth, chainstay length, and overall wheelbase. Overall though, I prefer smaller bikes with longer top tubes, and shorter wheelbases.

scozim 

+1 - my most frequent ride is 52cm. But, I also have a 58cm that I ride regularly. 60 is really too tall so that one hangs on my shop wall. I always thought the optimal size for me was 52-53 but have found I like 54cm the best.

Interestingly I'm working on a Peugeot hybrid that has a 48cm frame but a slightly sloping top tube. I figured it would be too small but I actually fit on it. It's got a pretty long top tube and I think that's what makes it work.

dddd

Thinktubes I think was the first to mention the tie-in between seat tube angle and top-tube length. I figure that each degree steeper or slacker will make the top tube measurement SEEM 0.9cm longer oer shorter, respectively. This is with respect to the purely-horizontal distance relationship between the bb shell and the upper headset.

Thrifty Bill also pointed out the saddle height being purely a function of the distance between saddle and the cranks (bb).

To all this, I will add that the head tube angle has an effect on what length of handlebar stem will allow the steering to handle properly.

Firstly, that a longer stem has a calming effect on the steering (with rider in the saddle) at speed, so if a larger-sized bike with a steep head tube angle is wanting for a shorter stem, this change may move the steering response overly in the direction of "twitchy".
And, if a smallish bike with a shallow head tube angle fits the rider better with a longer stem, the bike's steering may show a pronounced tendency to "flop" in response to any out-of-the-saddle pedaling, requiring the rider to exert much force to the bars just to keep the bike in line.

Such subtleties to bike fit have had me having to let go of some otherwise-good vintage bike builds, but I have at least learned what I've never seen published.

So, if a bigger bike lacks high-speed stability with a shorter stem, I've learned tomove the saddle foreward instead, which also makes for a more effortless trip up into the hills while netting an aerodynamic advantage.

And, If I should find a good deal on a particularly desireable, but oh-so-slack-angled Schwinn Varsi-nental, I now know that it must be the largest frame size that I can straddle, in order to fit and handle well with a shortish stem.

BTW, I'm a longer-legged 5'10", and my "rain bike" is a lightweight, lugged 50cm road bike with steep angles.
It has the requisite MTB seatpost and 135mm stem with about a 30-degree rise, and it fits (and handles) pretty well.
The bike's branding is "Detel Marathon-4000", and it has a 56cm top tube to go with it's 50cm seat tube and relatively steep angles.

My bike-du-jour of late, used for fast training rides, is an old American Eagle/Nishiki/Kokusai, and has 72-degree angles, a 63cm seat tube and even a 61.5cm top tube. It handles and performs exceptionally well even with the stock 110mm stem, (after I reversed the seat post as shown

DiabloScott

I'm a little under 5'10". I have a 54, a 55, and my commute bike is a 56, all horizontal top tubes.

The 54 is fine, the 55 is perfect, the 56 has about zero extra clearance on standover height. So I could MAYBE do a 53 up to 56. I miss the days when you could get 1cm increments.

lostarchitect 

I'm 5'-9" with short legs. I can ride from 53 to 57, but am most comfortable on a 55 or 54. My legs are short enough that I can "feel" the top tube on anything from 55 up. It gets... Delicate on a 57.

lostarchitect 

Well, if you've got to be wrong, at least you're proudly wrong.