I'm not short, just... not... tall!

Edit:

I would be willing to bet that 80% or more of the ProTour riders ride 56cm or smaller frames.

Anyways, I rock a 50cm.

I can't vote either. But if I could, I'd vote 47

Ha! Danke

"Short People got no reason, short people got no reason..."

I am going to edit the poll.

Can not see leaving out the emm shorter ones! (I am just kidding,my whole dad's family is very very short, I almost feel like a giant when I go there )


hi565

Mod

I used to ride a 19 in.

Now I ride a 57 cm.

sorry I have not changed it yet, still learning how to change the polls.

hi565

Wow, some mod you are.

56cm and im 5'4" ha!

p.s. and don't tell me both my bikes are waaaay to big cause they fit..so there...

Story of my life. I ride a 50. Not even an option in this poll for me.

We're the people that drag your slow arse up hills, if we have the patience (are commanded to by team captain) to do so. RESPEK!

LOL, what is this poll supposed to accomplish?

FYI: Just go to ebay and look at the frame count in each size. That probably gives you a better indication of the distribution and spread.

Maybe, or he could be doing it to poll the people he talks to on bf.

and a second option - LESS than 54... I am on a compact 49!! (and still wouldn't make the cut on a traditional frame! )

HERE HERE! Vertically Challenged I say!

Tossin' a little gasoline on that quiet but HOT "short-people" fire

52-54 & I like them all!

There are numerous articles talking about how the population has become taller. In 1970, the average American adult male was about 5'8" tall and today, younger adult males average around 5'10" tall.

But, our legs seem to be shrinking. The most popular "mid-price" road bike in American in 1972 was the Schwinn Continental. It came in sizes 22, 24, and 26. The 24 was the "best-selling" size. Schwinn seems to have included the seat clamp in its measurements, so deducting the seat clamp, those sizes were actually about 54, 59, and 64. Schwinn's more expensive "Sports Tourer" and "Super Sport" likewise featured the size 24 (59) as the "medium" size that was sold to the majority of riders.

So, how is it that in 1972, average guys of around 5'8" or so were buying and riding size 59 road bikes, and today, average guys of around 5'10" are posting to say they ride a size 52, 54, or 56? Have Americans gotting taller, yet their legs and arms are getting shorter? Or, are today's riders trying to pose as "Saturday" racers, buying tiny little bikes that enable them to ride with their noses down by the stem, and their hands four inches lower than their saddles?

If you ride for enjoyment, pleasure, or commute to work surrounded by motor vehicles, you are better off riding with your hands as high, or higher than the top of your saddle. A guy who is 5'10" can set up a size 59 or size 60 bike with the bars as high as the top of the saddle. But, on a size 54 bike, his hands are likely to end up at least two inches too low. He will look cool. He will look fast. And, in a couple of hours, his neck will hurt like heck.

There is a trend out there to sit more upright. Treks and Specialized are catering to this with a line of more upright bikes each.

Yeah but my frame's measured weirdly. It's ok, I'm not amazingly disproportionate! My frame is a compact geometry one, so the seat-tube is naturally shorter than a conventional geometry one. You can see pics of it in my sig link. Just imagine me on it, perfectly proportioned and in a pretty aggressive position, and you're about there!