how do most o' ya'll like your frames? with a standard kinda tight clearance or a little extra room? i can't decide between a 54 or a 53 frame. the 54 is tight and i dont wanna sing soprano but will i sit too upright on a 53 or it futzing with bar height an option?

and also what does stem size have to do with anything? i'm on the verge of ordering an iro and he has options as to stem size. like what is the difference between sizes? my options are 80 to 120. what up? sorry if these are stoopid ?s.

thanks!

a longer stem can make up for a shorter toptube since it basically makes you reach further forward.

two schools of thought on frame sizing: smaller is good (this is the more common one).

the other one is that we all ride frames that are too small, and should be riding bikes that are 2 - 3 cm bigger than we currently do.

fwiw, i like 'em small.

there are a couple of factors at work here. the first is standover height. Wearing your cycling shoes measure from the floor to your nuts with o=your feet shoulder length apart. that is your standover height, and ideally you want the top tube on your bike to be at least a little lower than that. If you can straddle the bike with both feet on the ground, and not be pressed up against that tube you should be safe provided you are reasonably coordinated. Anyway nuff said about standover height.

the next measurement is the distance from the seat to the bars. this is partly a matter of arm length, and trunk length, but also somewhat a matter of personal taste as some people prefer a more upright seating position. The fixed measurement here is the top tube length. In other words the distance between the seat tube and headset. You should start with a frame that gets ou in the right ballpark for a comfortable position. After that there are several different adjustments you can make to get the position that you like. there is seat angle, and forward/rearward position, and stem length and height, and handlebar position.

If you feel too crowded, like your back is hunched up, then you need to adjust that distance between seat ad bars. you can do this by moving the seat back, and/or install a longer stem. I the position is too upright, you can lower the bars how you do that depends upon wether you have a threadless or threaded headset, but it's doable either way.

I vote for small, quick and responsive instead of large and sluggish. If the top tube is a tad too short I just get a longer stem, like dolface said. But there's a thin line between small and too small and that's what sometimes can be a bit tricky. I don't like it when the rider looks like he's going to crush the bike because of his bigger size. It's all about harmony between the rider and his bike. A little extra room for your friend below is never a bad thing either.

The most detailed internet sizing page puts me on 57-58 cm bike and suggests setback seatpost and 120mm stem. I am riding 57cm road bike with 90mm MTB stem and I am very comfortable on it. I am equally comfortable on my 50.5cm fix (with 53cm top tube) which after my mod has virtual 53.5cm size - the saddle to bars drop is way bigger on the later. One can fit samller frame with appropriate seatpost and stem, but efficiency and handling will be affected.

I don't think a long stem gives responsive handling. It basically makes for a long lever, you need to move the bars farther for the same output at the front wheel. I agree it's a fine line between small and too small. I'm still not sure where that line falls for me, but I'd rather er on the side of large (but not too large) than too small

I feel at least 5'11" - 5'11 3/4" tall when I ride a smaller frame. I ride a 54cm and 5'10"

I do it for the social implications (school #3).

The traditional guidance has been you should ride a frame so that you have only a fistful of seat post showing. On the other hand, that's built around traditional components and having much more than a fistful of post showing meant your post was dangerously extended. That's not so true these days. This allows compact geometry which allows a smaller, lighter, and stiffer frame.

How long your reach needs to be (and thus how long of a stem you need) is a personal thing. A decent shop can help you find your fit, but it's usually around $40 to do so. A good starting place is with a top tube that's the same length as your seat tube. Now stick on maybe a 90mm stem and go from there.

you cats are the best! thanks. i'm almost settled on the iro jamie roy 53. i'm 5'8". should work with seat and stem adjustments i think. tell me if i'm way off the mark here.

what might that detailed sizing page be, pray tell?

again.. do a search next time.

my example:

road 57 center to top, 55 road frame is the smallest i can ride.

track 56 center to top, center to center is 54 so that is the smallest size i can ride.

54 center to top is the smallest track frame i can ride.

the rule is get at least 1" of clearence between the top tube and the family jewels.

S/F<
CEYA!

talking with chris at circle a about the frame i'm having built we've come up with a size that's a bit smaller than i would have expected. right now i'm riding a 55cm/55m road frame conversion with an 81cm standover. I'm 5'10" or so. the new frame geometry is 51.5cm seat tube with a higher BB that he says is roughly equal to a 53cm road frame, 53.5cm top tube, and 79.5cm standover. so yeah, i guess we're going with the smaller is better school of thought. still seems a bit small. what do ya'll think. i've never worked with a high BB and track geometry.

Wow, that seems really small. The seat tube's not so much a concern, but that TT will require some weird shuffling with stems.

I'm like 5'8" or 5'9" and very comfortably ride a 54x54 road frame and a 54x56 track frame, though the track frame stretches me out a little more than I would like. I'm having a frame built around 54x55 or 53x55 (I'm leaving it up to Mike's whim).

i went down from a 55 to a 53 (i'm 5-9) cause i thought it would be better for me, but when i was at the track some riders watching me advised me to raise both stem and saddle, and rotate my bars forward, all of which to lift me off the bike, because i was too compressed onto it. looking at the set-up now i could have stayed with the longer seat tube and steerer no problem. if the bike had much longer of a top tube it might be difficult.
i don't feel that 53 is "wrong" though, but there's definitely something to be siad for the idea that the received wisdom suggests bikes that are on the smaller end of our potential fit range.

edit: this is the bike. i'm an even 5-9, with slightly shorter than average arms

yeah, it's not the final geometry but it's what we're looking at right now. i agree that it seems a bit small. initially he had me with a 76.5 inseam (48.5 seat, 56 top) which is way too short so i remeasured and came up with 79.5 so i kinda estimated on the changes. haven't heard back from him since sending the new inseam yesterday. i definitely don't think im gonna go any shorter than 55 on the top tube. might do 56. the seat tube is what's got me perplexed.

Bigger is better! More comfortable and because it fits right you will be able to handle it properly and won't end up with that cramped style. Stretch, breathe, ride, enjoy. Almost everyone I ride with says their bicycle get uncomfortable after about 30 miles.

They all ride too small bicycles!

Read the Rivendell sizing guide for a reasonable approach to frame sizing.

Are you calling me out because I didn't say IMO or "...I could find"?
In case you don't here is the link:
https://www.competitivecyclist.com/za...LCULATOR_INTRO
It takes seven measurements and my results (in cm) are:

Measurements
-------------------------------------------
Inseam: 87.5
Trunk: 64
Forearm: 37.5
Arm: 75.8
Thigh: 64
Lower Leg: 56
Sternal Notch: 144


The Competitive Fit (cm)
-------------------------------------------
Seat tube range c-c: 56.7 - 57.2
Seat tube range c-t: 58.4 - 58.9
Top tube length: 57.0 - 57.4
Stem Length: 12.2 - 12.8
BB-Saddle Position: 75.0 - 77.0
Saddle-Handlebar: 57.6 - 58.2
Saddle Setback: 7.3 - 7.7
Seatpost Type: SETBACK


The Eddy Fit (cm)
-------------------------------------------
Seat tube range c-c: 57.9 - 58.4
Seat tube range c-t: 59.6 - 60.1
Top tube length: 57.0 - 57.4
Stem Length: 11.1 - 11.7
BB-Saddle Position: 74.2 - 76.2
Saddle-Handlebar: 58.4 - 59.0
Saddle Setback: 8.5 - 8.9
Seatpost Type: SETBACK


The French Fit (cm)
-------------------------------------------
Seat tube range c-c: 59.6 - 60.1
Seat tube range c-t: 61.3 - 61.8
Top tube length: 58.2 - 58.6
Stem Length: 11.3 - 11.9
BB-Saddle Position: 72.5 - 74.5
Saddle-Handlebar: 60.1 - 60.7
Saddle Setback: 8.0 - 8.4
Seatpost Type: SETBACK

[QUOTE=vobopl]Are you calling me out because I didn't say IMO or "...I could find"?
In case you don't here is the link:
https://www.competitivecyclist.com/za...LCULATOR_INTRO
It takes seven measurements and my results (in cm) are:

I do not believe anyone was 'calling you out'. We are just interested in the website url.

It is a good website.

Such are the subtleties of communication.

I found out two years age that in the Normandy region of France 'Je suis plein' no longer means 'I am full' but now means 'I am pregnant'.

When I'm riding more than a few miles, I go straight to my largest bike. Masi 3V (oversized tubing means less flexy than non-oversized, which matters in the big sizes) 60.5cm c-c (nominally 62). The larger size (coupled with a mere 3 cm drop saddle to handlebars) puts me in a super-comfy riding position with most of the weight on my butt bones rather than the jewels or the wrists. Oddly, this is also my fastest bike despite being larger and heavier and flexier than others in my fleet. I think that having a bike that fits well makes me able to focus more energy on pedaling and less on adjusting my body to counter pain or pressure.

I just bought a new Jamis Aurora. I'm on the tall side of 6'1"--I size to about a 60/61cm frame for most bikes. My LBS had the Aurora built up for a customer (who went w/something else) w/Spartacus wheels, Champion tires and 105 parts for $750--a real deal IMO. But the frame is a 62cm (Jamis only does 59 and 62). The jewels are a bit snug, but with shoes on it's not uncomfortable, and I can hop off the bike and stand w/out "jamming." But I can feel the top tube slightly.

I prefer the larger frames for their upright ride, so it's more standover height that I'm concerned about. Is this just simply a matter of preference/tolerance? I obviously don't want to hurt myself.

Thoughts?

I like that competitivecyclist.com size calculator, if only because it recognizes that different people have different ideas about how a bike should fit. The best way of figuring out what you're looking for in a new frame is to figure out what you like and don't like about your current frame - use the calculators as a reference against what you're currently riding to decide on what you want in a frame.

Also, keep in mind that most (if not all) of those calculators are for road frames - the higher BB on a track frame means that you should shave about 2cm off of the c-c seat tube measurement. ie, if the calculator puts you on a 56cm frame, you're going to want a 54cm track frame. Roughly... the standover should be around the same given a standard 11" track BB height. If you're raising or lowering your BB height from there, you may want to further adjust your seat tube length.

Also, sizing will be affected to some degree by geometry... given equal BB heights and standovers, a more relaxed seat tube angle will yeild a longer seat tube compared with a more track-specific seat tube angle.

Basically, seat tube length can be a really misleading measurement. Figure out what you want the frame to do, get the geometry to accomplish that and then let the lengths of the tubes sort themselves out. I think the angles are more important than the tube lengths.

m.

Thanks for the advice.