Kilo TT sizing opinions?
 

Im debating whether i should get a 44 or 47 mercier kilo. Im 5'1 in highschool and my in seam is 28. A 44 sounds good for the standover height but I filled out this calculator: http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za...O_LINK=NOREDIR
and it recommends a 47 frame c-c. Im still in high school so i really dont know if I'm going to grow more later in life. Which do you think would be a much better choice?

Unicycle.

Male or female ? You seem to have a relatively large inseam for your overall height. I'd go with the smaller 44cm size (47cm c-t actually), because the top tube will be shorter, which will probably fit your proportions better.

Check the geometry for whatever has the most appropriate tt length, not the standover

I may be doing it wrong, but I always focus more on standover/seat tube measurement when checking out geo. I would rather have that dialed in, so my reach adjustments could be made with the stem.

You are doing it wrong.

Do you ride your bike or walk it?

lol. Oh well. I am pretty content with my bike at the moment, so it'll be awhile until I'm seriously considering different geometries on another frame. Hopefully by then I'll know what I'm talking about.

Huh?... I ride the **** out of my bike.

Yeah, since saddle adjustments are more difficult than changing stems.

I've been under the impression that standover height is something you can't adjust..

Do you ride your bike or walk it?

I don't typically ride my bike by sitting on the top tube. I sit on the saddle, the saddle is on a nice long seatpost that easily adjusts up or down.

Edit: In my case this isn't actually true, but for the Kilo it is.

Now I see what you guys are saying.

I like the fact that I can stand over my bike comfortably stopped at intersections. I agree though, messing with seatpost length and saddle position are much easier to adjust than the stem and ****.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WYzeCXlcUX...ake-my-bad.jpg

I think it's less of a deal than us here make it.

Look at adriano, who doesn't mind the handling of a long stem, which can be a consequence of sizing by standover.

If your current ride fits, it fits :thumb:

Yeah, adjusting **** can get pretty messy.

Of course, if interpreted literally :)

That is unless you wear platform shoes, then you can adjust standover height, and look fasionable while doing so.

IIRC Adrianno's bikes have short stubby stems

He tends to advocate for the position of the hoods being a couple cm forward of the axle. Guess he's a climber.

I am a male. so 44cm? everyone else here is saying standover heightis unimportnt why is that?

Because you don't stand over your bike when you ride it and you don't need to stand over it when you dismount. I'm also short, and have no standover clearance on over 1/2 of my bikes. No problem, because when I stop I dismount from the saddle, put my left foot down and keep my right foot on the pedal, such that the bike is tipped on its side and I easily clear the top tube. What matters is your reach from the saddle to the handlebar, which is a combination of top tube length and stem length. Smaller size frames have shorter top tubes, and you probably have a short torso so you don't want a bike with a long top tube. If you get a larger frame size, you will need a very short stem to compensate for it. Anyway, based on the info you've provided, I'd recommend the 44cm size as the best choice.

You don't base your fit on stand over because it is not an issue while you are riding. Top tube length, for reach, and seat tube angle, for weight distribution, greatly affect your long term riding comfort - among other frame measurements

if im deciding for TT then i should get a 47? the calcuator says forr TT 51.0 - 51.4 and a 47 would compensate. idk i might go for a 44.

A smaller frame will be more agile....than a lager one...so if you plan on city rides with lots of turns...you may want the smaller frame.

This is poor advice.