Im 5' 10'', and I dont know how big my frame should be

This seems to be true, and one thing that I have found is that taller people typically require a PROPORTIONALLY longer frame reach than shorter people. Most conventional frame sizing formulas put me on a 58-59 cm frame (6'2, 34.75" inseam), but most regular geometry frames of this size don't have a long-enough reach.


That info, combined with what you have on your website, comes pretty close to what I am riding right now. I have a 1997 or 1998 LeMond BA. The frame is 57cm C-C, not quite 60cm C-T. I think that the top tube is 57.5. It came stock with a 175mm crank and 120mm stem. Based on my own evaluation, the bike fits me well. I rode it with the 120mm stem for a while and I always felt that the reach was too long for me so I swapped it out for a 100mm stem and that seemed to make a world of difference. Strictly speaking, the 100mm is probably a bit too short, but it is much closer to my ideal than the 120mm was. My guess is the ideal stem length for me on this frame would be somewhere between 105 and 110mm.

What is irritating is that most LBS employees will stubbornly insist that I am on too small a bike. Even more ironic is the fact that some of these shops sell LeMond bikes and should know that a 57cm LeMond measures out nearly the same as a 59-60cm Trek or Bianchi or whatever, plus the LeMond geometry gives a proportionally longer reach for a given seat tube height.

I think that I am most intrigued by your chart's recommendation of a 130-135mm stem for my body size and frame size. I don't think that I have abnormally short arms or anything, but that 120mm felt way too long.

Thanks for all of the info.

I thought I might throw your calculations out a little. Due to a bad arm break seemingly after my legs finished growing but before my spine grew I'm 5' 9" with 34.5" inseam. My shoes are size 10 as well. Your calculations say a 55 and that's close to the 54 (with a long seat tube) that seems most comfortable to me for reach.

It's interesting that I am 6' 2.5" with a 35.5 inseam and ride a 61cm c-c frame with a 60cm tt. I use a 120mm stem and 177.5mm cranks. For me, your bike would be too small. Perhaps your bar is much lower than mine is. I have a 5.5cm drop from seat to bar. I like the larger frame as it allows me to get the height of the bar I want without too many spacers and standover is still not an issue. Either way, it all comes down to what feels right.

I don’t agree with this statement Dave. It may be true most of the time but not with me. I am 6’4” tall but with short leg (35.5” inseam) and long torso/arms (37” sleeve). I ride a 59 cm (c-c) frame. Ideally, I think I should ride an over-square frame (59 x 60 cm top tube) with 72 deg seat tube and 74 deg head tube. Unfortunately, there are no off-the-shelf frames with these dimensions. So, I make do with a seatpost with a lot of offset and a long stem. I think that the human body can adapt to variations in riding position over time.

I would not agree you have short legs for your height; if you look at the top line of the chart on my website your measurements are close to what I have there. The chart is based on what I found for most people. Not averages because averages throw a formula all out of whack, no one is average. Also you will see I recommend a 61cm. c-t which is a 59 c-c which is what you are riding. If you have to use a long stem this is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if it puts your weight directly over the front wheel as this makes for good handling.

Having said all this I would add; when it comes to human bodies there are no hard and fast rules, I did refer to “Rules of nature” in my original post, but this is not strictly true; there are only generalizations.

This is why formulas don’t work for everybody, but they do work for most. This has been demonstrated in this thread, many say it works for them, but there have been other exceptions where it doesn’t even come close. All a person can do is take this and other formulas as a very rough guide and couple it with common sense and their own experience.

This is totally false and unscientific. Look at a Kangaroos and Gorillas. We mammals (and marsupials) have a huge range of body proportions. In addition, if people's proportions did not scale then we would be able to tell exactly how tall somebody was by looking at their picture. Of course it works for some, but it certainly cannot be generalized to the whole human race.

Dave, perhaps your experience is on a genetically homogeneous group of people?

Sorry, not too many kangaroos and gorillas where I come from. :D

Why don't you just ride a larger frame? I still have enough clearance over my 61 c-c frame (same inseam as you) but have the 60 tt and 74/72 angles you are looking for. A larger frame gives me a bit more wheelbase while distributing my weight better on the bike. I used to ride a smaller 59 c-c 59 tt frame 73/72.5 and was never comfortable on it or with the way it handled for me (especially in sharp corners and steep decents).

Almost all off-the-shelf large frames have the same angles. Therefore, a 61 c-c is the same as a 59 c-c except the top tube is lower on the smaller frame. My reach is most likely close to yours but I have more seat post showing. Now, if the seat angle went from 72.5 to 72 or the head angle went from 73.5 to 74 from the 59 to the 61, that would make a difference. Otherwise, you just have a larger, heavier, more flexible frame without any additional reach.

If Dave measured me up...he would build me a 59 c-c with a 60 c-c top tube, 72 deg seat, 74 head, 40mm fork offset, highish bottom bracket for my long cranks... and I would love it! Can you do it in carbon Dave**********

Pretty much describes my frame, but in Ti. The 61 c-c seattube length also comes with a bit longer headtube which helps in my case since I have only 5.5cm of saddle to bar drop.

My new frame, a Calfee Luna, will be 60 c-c with a 60 tt and 74/72.25 angles and 7cm BB drop. And it is carbon.

I have about 9 cm of saddle to bar drop on my Look frame which helps lengthen the reach a little. Carbon is....so nice! You will love it...

Here is a pic of the Look

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/galen_...fe.jpg&.src=ph

I can see how you would be pretty stretched out on that bike. Too much drop to the bars for me though. I can't wait to give the Calfee a spin. Unfortunately, that won't be until December.

I'm 5'11, have a 31" inseam and wear size 10.5 shoes. So looking at my very odd measurements what do you think I should ride? I stood over a 54 today and was about .5" - 1" above the top tube.

Your measurements are not really “odd” when it comes to human bodies no two are alike and it is quite common for people to have short legs for their height.

Although your height would indicate a 58cm. frame measured center to top (56cm. center to center.) because of your short inseam I would drop down two centimeters from that to 56cm. center to top (54cm. center to center.)

With short legs for you height you may not have the luxury of a lot of stand over clearance, but stand over is only a rough guide and the important thing is a good fit when you are actually riding the bike.

I'll try and ride a 54 today. What do you think about stem and crank sizes for me?

Thanks, I'm trying to get into my first road bike.

It would be difficult for me to recommend a stem length without knowing the top tube length. If you are buying this bike from a reputable store then presumably the person fitting you should be knowledgeable. There is nothing more difficult for a person trying to help someone when they have too many preconceived ideas of what they need. So I would recommend you leave the final choices to whoever is doing the fitting because after all he has the advantage of seeing you on the actual bike.

If you would like a second opinion I would be happy to do that; you can send a private message me when you know the top tube length. (c-c) If this is your first road bike I would recommend a somewhat relaxed position rather than an extreme racing position. It will probably take a year of regular riding and for your body to become supple enough for a longer stem. By that time your own experience will tell you what you need.

As for crank length; standard 170 or 172mm. will probably be what the bike comes with, and would be fine. The difference between the two is so miniscule and will not make a huge difference. You would not want long cranks with your short legs.

I am 5-8 1/2 or 68.5 inches. My inseam is 28.5 inches, feet are 10 inches. So according to your chart, I would fit either a 55 or a 54cm bike. Interesting since I currently ride a 2003 Klein 55cm sloping Q-Carbon Race frame and I was recently checked out by several local "fit" guys who say my stem is too short. I was complaining of feeling cramped and uncomfortable in the drops. Otherwise, the bike feels great, like I am riding more "in" it rather than "on" it.

People always think I am taller than I really am because I have short legs and an average length torso. Many shops doing the eyeball test have misfit to big on road bikes when I come in.

Mike - Texas coast

It is not uncommon for someone to have the body leg proportion you do; there have been quite a few on this thread. A frame more suited to your height rather than your inseam will work for you because your foot is long for your inseam therefore your saddle needs to go higher than your inseam would suggest. There will be less height difference between your handlebars and saddle but if you have short legs you probably have short arms also so this set up will work for you. The longer top tube of the bigger frame is what you need for your longer body and it appears you may need a longer stem also.

Go to my website; link below and go to “Bicycles” Page 6 Bike Tech. There is a frame sizing chart there for traditional frames with a level top tube and I have just recently added new material about transferring frame size to compact bikes.

Hey Dave.

I recently bought a Trek 1000, 63cm frame. I'm 198cm, or 6'6". My problem is that my legs are extremely long but the upper half of my body is average length. The large frame is good for my leg length, but this means that the reach the the handlebars is very long - too long.

What can I do to fix this, cause it can be quite uncomfortable to ride in this way. Could I buy another stem - that's shorter than the one I have? The stem should also raise the handlebar height because the seat is up very high.

Cheers

How do your formulas hold up for shorter women, like those shorter than 5'-3"? My wife is 61-1/2" tall with a 29" inseam; long legs for her height. Using your 3.3 denominator, that would equal a 47.3 cm frame. On stock frames, a 48 cm Cannondale (spec. is C-C) or a 50 cm (spec. is C-T) Trek are pretty good fits. Frame size (C-T) + 10 cm for overall reach equals 600 mm, which I think is about 20-30 mm too long for a woman. On the Trek 50 cm (C-T), the SOH is marginal for her. A 49 cm WSD would probably be ideal, but oops..Trek skips from 47 all the way up to 51 cm on the WSD's.

You could try to find a stem that is shorter and will raise your handlebars, but the real answer would seem to be a larger frame to cut down on the seat to handlebar height difference. I don’t know what is available in a stock frame; I used to build up to 66cm. You could contact Russ Denny who took over my business and ask if he still builds a large stock frame: www.russdennybicycles.com



It would seem the 3.3 denominator works pretty well, but the problem in designing frame this small is; how small can you go with 27 inch wheels? When I built a conventional lugged frame with a level top tube the smallest I could go was a 48cm (c to t.) with a 51 top tube. As it was I was pushing the limits of the lugs as far as I could and the bike had some toe overlap of the front wheel even though the head angle was decreased to 72 and the fork rake increased. The only way to make the top tube shorter would have been to alter the fork rake and head angle even more; this would have affected to bike's handling adversely.

Now it is acceptable to have sloping top tube and frame can be built lugless it may be possible to tweak the design a little and make it a little shorter, but the main problem is always those big 27 inch wheels that have to be placed a certain distance apart; it limits how short you can make a bike. I would suggest you look for the shortest top tube available and together with a short stem it will work. One thing I am sure of you will not come across a bike where the top tube is too short.

Dave,

I have the feeling that the usual sizing charts always put me on a smaller frame.

I bought 2 bikes during the last 20 years, one with standard geometry and the other one with compact geometry. In the sizing process at the LBS for these bikes, each time they sized me on a smaller frame but I felt more comfortable with the next larger size and ended up buying the bigger bike. These bikes have an effective TT length of 57.75 (the one with standard geometry - a 1984 touring bike), the other, which is a recent bike (2003 compact road bike) and my usual ride, have a 58.50 ETT length with a 10cm stem. This one feels a tad long but I just started serious road biking last summer and I think it's only a minor flexibility issue.

I plan to buy a third road bike but I would like to confirm my sizing with your chart. I am 72" tall with a 35" inseam and long feet (11.5 shoes). I think that my feet size is the reason why I am more comfortable on a bigger frame size that the usual charts dictate.

Thank you in advance.

Too Bad Dave isn't around anymore. I had a few questions for him.

53-11: I reached Dave through his Web site and got a fine answer concerning my last post. Hope it can help...