Hi all, I'm about to grab a new State Bicycles "Core-Line" single speed, but I'm really hung up on a usually simple thing...Sizing

I usually ride a 56 or close to it, my Salsa Journeyman is a 55.5, my last road bike (years ago was a 56). My mountain bike is a size L (19.5" per Trek)

So here's the issue, State bicycles only offers the Core-line in 46, 50, 54 & 58.

According to there sizing chart people 5' 7" to 5' 11' are M (54cm)...and those 5' 11' to 6' 2" are L (58cm).....well I'm basically 6' (5' 11 15/16" according to the Doc.).

So...Technically the 54cm medium is too small, and the 58cm is too big....

Can anyone speak to the fitment of these bikes? Did you size up? Size down?

According to State if you are "between sizes, you should size down", well I'm not between sizes, I'm actually sized for the L, but the 58 just seems too big....Thoughts?

My gut is saying go 54cm and adjust to fit if needed.

I'd compare the State's top tube lengths to your Salsa and get the one closest to it.

I thought about that, but I wasn't sure if it was a good comparison because they aren't the same style/discipline type of bikes?

But for grins I went and checked.

Effective top tube for the Salsa is 555mm

Effective top tube for the State (size M) 538mm

Effective top tube for the State (size L) 555mm

So technically the L State has the identical ETT as the Salsa.....However the standover for the State (size M) is basically the same as my Salsa, whereas the State (size L) is 1.3" taller...this may be a problem because the TT of my Salsa is a good fit (I can stand over it with just a tiny bit of "package clearance" ...I'm afraid the TT of the L State will be WAY "up in my business".


Odd thing though the Size M State actually has a .3" LONGER reach verses the Salsa, and the L was .5" longer...I get the L being a bit longer, but I was surprised that the M had a longer reach than my Salsa, especially since it has a shorter Effective top tube length.....Uggg numbers make my head hurt.

Salsa 55.5
Top Tube Effective 555mm (21.9")
Reach 373mm (14.7")
Standover 778mm (30.6")
Stack 595mm (23.4")

State Bikes 54 (Medium)
Top Tube Effective 538mm (21.2") - .7"
Reach 380mm (15") + .3"
Standover 775mm (30.5") - .1"
Stack 536mm (21.1") - 2.3"

State Bikes 58 (Large)
Top Tube Effective 555mm (21.9") 0
Reach 386mm (15.2") + .5"
Standover 811mm (31.9") + 1.3"
Stack 570mm (22.4") - 1"

My inseam is 31.5" or 800mm (no shoes) so therein lies my issue...everything about the L looks OK to me, except the standover.

What's your true floor-to-pelvic bone standover with shoes on?

If I'm understanding you correctly it would appear with shoes, my inseam increases to just a hair over 32"...Looks to be 32 1/8" or about 815mm...

Based on that number I know it would appear that I'd fit a Large, but just barely on the standover...and really don't wanna be crowded there.

Looking at the numbers between the M & L there really isn't a ton of difference, the largest difference is in Standover & Stack, and based on that, I think I'm going to opt for the Medium, I just wish the stack was a little higher on it...And compared to my Salsa Journeyman this size medium is going to to have 2.3" lower stack & about .7" longer reach, which I "think" means I'll feel more stretched out on this bike, something I could probably fix with shorter stem with an increased rise, and/or a bit higher rise on the bars, or possibly a a riser bar with a bit of a backsweep.

https://www.statebicycle.com/blogs/s...e-sizing-guide

Yeah, that's probably the route to take. The reach is right, even though the stack height is way lower. It's weird that they skip the 56cm size entirely and jump from a 54 to a 58.

Yeah, they do offer more sizing options on their more expensive offerings, but I'm assuming because this is there most affordable option, they probably help keep costs down by limiting they amount of sizes they offer.

I Typically don't go for the cheapest option, but this is my first Single Speed, and I'm not sure it's something I'm going to ride a ton but I wanted to give it a try, combine that with the fact these cheap State Bike Co. steel bikes are currently getting pretty good reviews. I've got a friend that has one and she LOVES it, unfortunately she's on the smallest size, otherwise I would have taken hers for a spin to gauge size.

Standover height is the WRONG way to fit a bike, and toptube length is the CORRECT way to fit a bike. I can’t stand over many of my bikes, especially track bikes with high bottom brackets, yet I’ve never smashed my junk on the toptube. The trick is to tilt the bike to the side, and put only one foot down when you stop.

Then it would appear the Large is the best option, considering the Effective TT is the exact same length for the State 58cm and my existing Journeyman.

I guess for some reason I figured TT was important, but that it may vary bike to bike, like My Journeyman for example is a Gravel/Adventure bike, and then the Core-Line is a SS/Fixie....so I figured different riding positions would make the TT less of an issue? Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing what your saying, I'm just trying to wrap my head around it.

Thanks for the info!

Your total height is a very blunt tool when it comes to sizing a bike.

Of this I have no doubt...I'm trying to get as much info as I can because obviously ordering a bike site unseen and guessing on fitment kinda sucks....

Well, after chatting with the guys over at State Bicycle Co. I went ahead and ordered a large, based on all the measurements I can compare, the Large just fits a little more across the board...Perfect? Nope, but pretty close, probably close enough that I can dial it in good.

I just don't understand why they even show standover heights, if no one used that number to determine bike fit?

Standover height is just one consideration when sizing a bike. No biggie but, yeah, I get what you mean about buying a bike without test riding it first.
That said, I think you’re going to be very happy with your new purchase.

People do use it as a factor in determining bike fit, but it's not as critical as other measurements, especially on a bike used mostly on the road (or track). And some folks have short (or long) legs relative to their torso, so for them the standover measurement might be more important. Regardless of how useful the number is, there's certainly no harm in publishing it.

BTW, the Bike Insights frame comparison site can be very useful. I loaded this one with the State Core-line 58 and the Journeyman 55.5 so you can see how they "stack" up.

Yep, this is me, I'm definitely "longer on the top side" which is why I focused so much on the standover.

Thank You! This is super helpful! Looking at these numbers this size Large will definitely be "up in my business" when I'm standing, but it should be pretty comfy while riding. Based on these far more comprehensive numbers, it looks like I'll probably have the seat post nearly slammed, and will probably want to switch the stem from 90mm to a 70mm...But we'll wait until I can toss my ass on the thing before I start modding it...

I think it's pretty common for a casual or new-to-the-game rider to gauge size based on standover. Not everyone is bike nerd enough to need or want a detailed bike fit, and geometry charts look like hieroglyphs to an outsider, so I can see why they do it.

i have a 54 fits well.
​​​​All my road bikes are 56.
i was surprised that 54 felt right.
i ride bullhorns.

Yep, I nerded out HARD when I bought my Full Suspension MTB...headtube angle, reach, chainstay length, sag, high speed compression, low speed compression, rebound etc... the list went on and on, so when I decided to shop for a Single Speed, I thought "how hard can it be, it's just a bike with 1 speed" LOL!

Well, my initial thought was for the 54 too, but after talking with the folks at State Bicycle Co. and looking at all the numbers, the 58 was just closer for most of the important specs, with the exception of standover, and a little longer on the reach too, but the reach is easily remedied with a shorter stem, so we'll give it a go on the 58, I'm crossing my fingers that it's a good fit....Should be here in a week or so, I'll report back.

ok
let me know.
​​​​stand over was an issue i am with short leggs 30 inseam
an issue with fixie.

Alright so a quick follow up. (if anyone was actually watching this thread).

Got the bike today, and built it up.

I'm REALLY happy I went with the 58cm, the stand over ended up not being an issue at all, it's "up there" but not bad at all.

It rides great, tough to believe this is a $300 bike?

As expected, the reach is a bit more than I'd like, but I think if a stick on a 70mm stem with a slight rise, I'm going to get it pretty close, I have a little dialing to do with the seat (front to rear).

All in all, pretty stoked.

Hi,
It's nice to see others are also considering this bike.

I'm mostly a paved road rider up and down hilly streets, but sometimes would like to take it on gravel fire-roads or single tracks. I'm mostly a casual rider but still enjoy high-end features that a good fitness hybrid/gravel bike has to offer.

I too like the idea of getting this bike for it's versatility:

1. Get the frame that will allow me to switch out the wheel sets from 700c to 650B.
2. Get 11-46 cassette in the back for lower gearing and whatever chain ring in the front makes sense for me.
3. Change out brakes for a hydromechanical setup (Winn R1s or the TRP HYRDs).
4. Put on a rear rack for a child seat for my 2-year-old.

But, it looks like the largest frame size ("Large") is 55 cm size. I'm thinking that will be a problem since I'm 6'3" (torso=23" and inseam without shoes with seat firm against crotch=34.6"), arm-length= 29" and neck long. Might this 55 cm frame still work? If not, are there some other bikes with a good versatile base like this one that have larger frames that can accommodate my height, inseam, longer torso proportionately to my legs and reach like 59cm, 60 cm or 61 cm)?

My budget for this is between $3k and $4k

Thank you in advance for your thoughts on this.

Lee