Does one fit oneself to track frame dimensions within the same
parameters as being fit for a road bike geometry???

I'm no expert on this but the first thing everyone mentions is that a track frame's higher bb shell means that an x length seat tube will also be higher, in turn putting the top tube closer to your junk. This confused me when i tried out a track frame of the same length seat tube as my roadie and found it had less standover room. So if you plan on standing over your track bike a lot it's often recommended to get 2-4cm smaller size than your roadie.

So you're saying sacrifice the length of the TT just so the TT doesn't graze your junk? Who the hell plans on standing over their track bike a lot? This type of thinking is what brought about awful compact frames.

If you go by top-tube length (which is far more important as far as fit, IMHO), there should be little to no difference.

no. a shorter top tube will not lower standover...

+1 to sizing based on top tube and ignoring standover.

-1
The length of the seat tube in relation to the length of the top tube matters. Not cause of your sack sittin on the top tube or not.... but because of the geometry it will create throughout the frame. Cleary changing the handling and ride of the frame.
How does it change things..in what way? I dont know. I just know it does.

of course the seat tube length affects the geometry. so does wheelbase, bb height, fork rake and trail and h/t s/t angles.

but if you're a little off on s/t length, you can move the seatpost up or down quite a bit and adjust the fore-aft position of the saddle to get the right positioning on the bike. creating the exact correct contact points without affecting your pedal stroke.

if your top tube's off, all you can do to get the right contact points is get a long or short stem. and that does affect steering.

long seatpost = ugly, short stem = compromised steering

pick based on your priorities.

No, I'm not saying that, which is why my advice is conditionalized on something silly that no one plans to do. In my original post I said what people often recommend and subtly showed disapproval for it.

+1 for toptube length.

however, the higher the standover, the less seatpost you'll have to run, thereby lowering the saddle to bars ratio (unless you like your stem raised up a lot, most ppl don't), which makes for a more comfortable ride on the street. standover isn't as big of a deal on a track or road bike as it is on a mountain bike. . .

but if i was doing mad skids and tricks, i'd get a slightly smaller frame for bail-ability. but i'm not.

fyi, some people on the track race with smaller frames to get a super aero tuck. the polish national team trains at the san diego velo, so i see them all the time. they ride frames that are waaaay small, with at least 12+" of seatpost?! of course, this is totally ******** for the street. anyhow, that is why you might hear people say to downsize for a track bike.

No it doesn't, it lowers the tt and therefore shortens the seat stays and the headtube. With classic geometry it does not require changing any angles(outside of the meaninglessone related to the seat stays) nor does it require changing the lengths of any other other tubes. Therefore it effects neither weight distrobution nor steering geometry. The only difference in ride left is the miniscule change to stiffness.

Once again you are blabbing about something you don't understand. You even admit you have no clue about it. Why bother posting at all?

Unless one is looking at a custom frame (and I don't believe we are), geometry actually does change as the size (generally taken from the seat tube length) changes. If you define the term "to require" as something to which you have no alternative, than a change in geometry is generally required when changing sizes.
This is simply the way mass production frames are made. You should have noticed this when you were purchasing your crosscheck.

the problem is, there is no standard by which frame sizes vary. for example, italian frames sometimes tend to have a "high and tight" geometry, or longer seattube than toptube. my basso is 56X55 c-c. seems like keirin frames tend to have the opposite, longer toptube than seattube ("long and low?").

if all frames had an identical seattube and toptube measurement (ie 56X56), then all the statements above in this thread would be accurate.

Yes on most modern bikes they do, because when you change tt length(NOT ST LENGTH) you need to change some other aspects of geometry to make everything work right. Further, tall people may not be shaped like short people so some designers will try to accomodate that one way or another. His comment about a ST/TT ratio determining something meaningful about the rest of the geometry was completely wrong. Look at old road bikes if you don't believe me. Many are built with nothing varying across the sizes other the ST and HT.

Well, i posted to maybe shed some light on something he may not have thought about yet. You clearly just want to be an ass to any and everyone you can.
Instead of just saying facts and helping when you can you have to be a jerk as well. Everytime i see you act this way to someone i just shake my head.
Its really sad you have to act this way.
Did mommy and daddy not give you enough attention? < serious question

lol

but you shed no light on anything and finished your statement with an admission that you knew of no factual basis for it you thought it was true. It also went agaisnt the good advice given by everyone else and in fact was incredibly inaccurate. I just don't understand why anyone would post some random unsupported thoughts that they might have had as advice or substantive rebuttal of a prevailing opinion.

Also you are an ass to me. You often make statements that have no basis is fact( remember "stopping or slowing down it always wrong"). Why would yet another example of such ****ty posting be met with anything but derision from me.

also -1 one to this entire thread. I think color of the rims probably has the largest effect on fit and handling. I don't know why this is but there is really no question that it is the case.

RED GO FASTER!

I guess you just dont understand things. I wasnt giving him advice at all. Maybe you just misread things. Sorta like youve misqouted me ("stopping or slowing down it always wrong") Ive never said that anywhere. If it helps you try to be a jerk im sure youll say anything.
Being wrong and being an dickhead are very different things. Id rather continue being the prior.
You didnt answer my question either

If thats not advice on a thread in which the OP is asking for advice on bike fitting I don't know what it is. It is also completely and totally wrong. The ratio of ST to TT is as meaningless as rim color.

I will admit my quote regarding your moronic post on slowing or stopping was not verbatim but it did capture the spirit. I believe you actually said something like slowing or stopping is NEVER the best course of action.

If you want to avoid derision stop asserting stuff as fact when you are really just pulling it out of your ass. Something like "doesn't the tt to st ratio effect handling geometry?" or "It seems like ST length is important in how a bike rides too" would be a better way to keep you self from looking like a clueless ****up all the time. This is especially the case when you are stating something in direct opposition to what the vast majority of the serious cycling community beleives.

Advice to do what? What the hell are you talking about?


No, i didnt say that. I said that stopping or slowing down is NOT ALWAYS the best course of action. Clearly, that is true...even when driving a car.
That isnt relevant. You cleary understood that i meant only to bring up and suggest he take into account that seat tube length has some affect. He was saying to 'ignore' seat tube length entirely when sizing. That in itself is "in direct opposition to what the vast majority of the serious cycling community beleives".

NO with the exception of mtbs and comfort bikes that need to be stood over the vast majority of serious cyclists will tell you that ST length is meaningless and bikes are better sized with tt length(provided you can actually get the seat at the right height.)

You disagreed with most everyone else on the thread who was telling him that he should ignore ST and look at TT. Your -1 is disagreement and then said that in fact st to tt ratio is somehow meaningful. This is complete and total nonsense. Further, since the purpose of the thread was to give the OP advice your moronic babbling is indeed advice even if bad advice. I know you've bought a some track bikes in the past few months including some that didn't fit you but you're in over your head here.

I'm pretty sure you after you claimed that stopping wasn't always best you went on to assert that it in fact was never the best choice. I clearly remember people besides myself telling you had no clue what you where talking about. Maybe I'll look it up next time you post some idiocy that has no bearing to reality.

wow, an interesting an informative thread on geometry turns into a shouting match between a correct ******bag and an incorrect ******bag.

it's more or less a biweekly thread so I can't see how it is that interesting. In fact I think there is another one on the same topic right now even.

Clearly, totally ignoring seattube length is stupid. Thats all i meant by it. I think even you would agree that totally ignoring it is dumb and im sure you wouldnt do such a thing.> Ive seen frames with 56cm top tubes and 50cm seat tubes. I dont know about you..but i wouldnt ride that. If nothing else, it just look bad.

Then say you think it will look silly and don't make up some bull**** about handling and try to pass if off as fact. If the op needs a 56cm tt he will be better suited with 50 56 then with 53 53.


yeah there we go.