Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Touring
Reload this Page >

Touring framesize

Notices
Touring Have a dream to ride a bike across your state, across the country, or around the world? Self-contained or fully supported? Trade ideas, adventures, and more in our bicycle touring forum.

Touring framesize

Old 09-23-16, 02:32 PM
  #26  
BobG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NH
Posts: 950
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 279 Post(s)
Liked 89 Times in 66 Posts
Originally Posted by Inpd View Post
...But the touring frame sets are weird. Often the ETT doesn't change much at all but the seat tube can change a lot...
Many touring (and road) bikes now have some degree of a slope to the top tube making seat tube length relatively meaningless for sizing. A sloped TT will result from either a taller HT or a shorter ST. If the ST has been shortened to produce the slope then that dimension is no longer a constant that can be used for frame fitting. Looks like the Windsor Tourist may have a slightly sloping top tube which may vary from size to size, thus you cannot compare it's ST "size" with any previous bike you've had with a level or different slope of TT. Hard to compare with the LHT also as they have fairly level TTs.

For example, my road bike has a 51cm ST (center to top) and a level TT. My touring bike has a 43cm ST and a steeply sloping TT. Both have short head tubes (TT and DT touching). Each has the same "saddle/pedal start" height (pedal axle to saddle top) of about 83cm. The touring frame just accomplishes this with more seat post exposed. I appreciate the higher standover. The road frame has more of it's "saddle/pedal start" in the seat tube with less exposed seat post. ETT of 53-54cm is close to identical on each frame...





For the three choices that you have posted I would choose the one that gives you the desired amount of exposed seat post relative to your "saddle/pedal start". Yes, being a mail order bike this may be hard to envision. You could always measure your start height on your present bike (crank in line with ST), then subtract the three Windsor ST lengths to see how much post would be exposed with each choice. This of course is assuming all bikes have the same crank length. You also might want to compare the 3 choices of "standover height" (758, 792, 812) with some sort of home made measuring jig.

Originally Posted by himespau View Post
I can't imagine a head tube of 120 mm.
My head tube is just 75mm. With an old style quill stem riser the bars will reach 2" higher than the saddle. Saddle rails are 8" above TT...

BobG is offline  
Old 09-23-16, 03:06 PM
  #27  
Doug64
Senior Member
 
Doug64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Oregon
Posts: 6,396
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1134 Post(s)
Liked 722 Times in 383 Posts
Start them young and make it fun

Is that the actual measured top of seatpost to center of BB size? or is it the manufacturer's stated size?The reason I'm asking is that I have a bike that is right in the 56-57 cm range, and due to the compact frame geometry the top of the seat tube to BB distance is only 54 CM, but there is 3" more seat post showing than on my more traditional bikes. In reality it is a 56-57 cm sized frame.
Doug64 is offline  
Old 09-23-16, 03:11 PM
  #28  
MassiveD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
I make my own frames and the way I wrapped my head around it in 05 was by getting every bike I had, or could reliably draw from square photos on the internet, and draw them into CAD. Over time, one thing I came to realize is that the charts they use to sell bikes are not in all cases reliable. I remember one chart I read that had every bike with 440 CSs, and the same wheel base, for riders 60" t0 74 inches, so as a guy who fits long on top and short on the bottom overall height over 73 inches, that stuff made no sense, or was horribly tight.

A frame (just had this conversation offline) I bought because I had wanted one years before, when I got it, though it made all the right aesthetic and fittings, and numbers noises in the catalog, turned out to be an MTB geometry frame. No way of knowing unless you bought it.

You can only get so far with this stuff from catalogs, which is why you are here. I would guess the guy who has your inseam length and rode the frame is your best bet (sorry about names over the page).

Depends the kind of ride you want on a bike, but if anything on a touring bike I want as huge a frame as I can get. Old school if possible, I am just motoring down the paint line hour after hour and I need stability for all the gear. There is no significant weight issue, or handling issue even off road.
MassiveD is offline  
Old 09-23-16, 03:15 PM
  #29  
MassiveD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
If they are using an Estimated top tube height in their sizing charts I would have thought they have bikes that are sized based on that. But knowing the top tube is not horizontal a rider like me who has low standover, long reach needs can easily game a whole second set of fits out of the chart. I would be looking at reach, if I fit that way.
MassiveD is offline  
Old 09-23-16, 07:41 PM
  #30  
Dream Cyclery
Wheel Builder
 
Dream Cyclery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 148
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
FYI, when you pick a frame size, you compare your current frame's reach and stack height as a reference. ETT and ST and HEAD don't matter much when the frames have different HTA, STA and etc..
Dream Cyclery is offline  
Old 09-23-16, 09:19 PM
  #31  
GamblerGORD53
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Elevation 666m Edmonton Canada
Posts: 2,107

Bikes: 2013 Custom SA5w / Rohloff Tourster

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1024 Post(s)
Liked 205 Times in 163 Posts
Get the 56cm, no doubt. A shorter bike helps nothing, Less toe overlap and longer TT will.
GamblerGORD53 is offline  
Old 09-23-16, 10:22 PM
  #32  
Inpd
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,825
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 401 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ThermionicScott View Post
If you're 5'10" and can stand over at least 32.5", I don't know why you're considering 49/50cm frames at all unless you have T-rex arms.
But if the ETT difference between the 49 and 54 sized version is just 1cm. So doesn't it mean People with the same length arms could ride both bikes? The difference is that with the 49cm you will show 50mm more seat tube. Not necessarily a bad thing.
Inpd is offline  
Old 09-23-16, 10:53 PM
  #33  
ThermionicScott 
working on my sandal tan
 
ThermionicScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 22,140

Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers), All-City Space Horse (hers)

Mentioned: 95 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3672 Post(s)
Liked 2,143 Times in 1,353 Posts
Originally Posted by Inpd View Post
But if the ETT difference between the 49 and 54 sized version is just 1cm. So doesn't it mean People with the same length arms could ride both bikes? The difference is that with the 49cm you will show 50mm more seat tube. Not necessarily a bad thing.
It isn't necessarily a good thing, either. If you are able to stand over the bike whenever you want/need to, more seat post doesn't achieve anything. And geometry usually gets weird with smaller sizes. The seat tube gets steeper to keep it away from the rear tire (meaning you have to set the saddle further back) and the head tube gets slacker to keep the bars from getting too far away while keeping the front wheel from getting too close (toe overlap). So if they're not careful, the bike won't handle as well. Switching to smaller wheels allows the maker to avoid these compromises, but most don't have the balls to do that.
__________________
Originally Posted by chandltp View Post
There's no such thing as too far.. just lack of time
Originally Posted by noglider
People in this forum are not typical.
RUSA #7498
ThermionicScott is offline  
Old 09-24-16, 05:23 AM
  #34  
shelbyfv
Expired Member
 
shelbyfv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: TN
Posts: 10,163
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3031 Post(s)
Liked 3,998 Times in 2,019 Posts
Originally Posted by Inpd View Post
But if the ETT difference between the 49 and 54 sized version is just 1cm. So doesn't it mean People with the same length arms could ride both bikes? The difference is that with the 49cm you will show 50mm more seat tube. Not necessarily a bad thing.
The extra seatpost isn't the problem. The smaller bike has a shorter headtube and will require a goofy tall stack of spacers and/or a riser stem. I think you've been that route before with the Breezer? Even with those work arounds, you've said the position isn't comfortable for longer distances. Don't want to go down that road again!

Last edited by shelbyfv; 09-24-16 at 07:20 AM.
shelbyfv is offline  
Old 09-24-16, 09:13 PM
  #35  
Inpd
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,825
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 401 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Modeled and Visualized the Two Frames

Hi,

I found this nice site Stack and reach calculator which allows you to enter various calculations (except seat tube length ironically) and then it visualizes the two bikes and calculates stack and reach.

Attached are the details. It seems the end result is that the 54cm bike has 2cm greater stack. Reach is the same!
Attached Images
Inpd is offline  
Old 09-24-16, 09:54 PM
  #36  
ThermionicScott 
working on my sandal tan
 
ThermionicScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 22,140

Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers), All-City Space Horse (hers)

Mentioned: 95 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3672 Post(s)
Liked 2,143 Times in 1,353 Posts
It's not ironic because for the purpose of this calculation, it doesn't matter at all where the seat tube ends and the seat post begins.

So in the case of the Windsor Tourist in your OP, the geometry is exactly the same between the 49cm and 54cm, only the top tube is lower for one of them. Sucks for the shorter person who might have wanted less reach on their smaller frame. You have ample standover clearance with any bike frame you've mentioned in this thread, so why haven't you eliminated the 49cm, again?
__________________
Originally Posted by chandltp View Post
There's no such thing as too far.. just lack of time
Originally Posted by noglider
People in this forum are not typical.
RUSA #7498
ThermionicScott is offline  
Old 09-24-16, 10:05 PM
  #37  
Inpd
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,825
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 401 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ThermionicScott View Post
It's not ironic because for the purpose of this calculation, it doesn't matter at all where the seat tube ends and the seat post begins.

So in the case of the Windsor Tourist in your OP, the geometry is exactly the same between the 49cm and 54cm, only the top tube is lower for one of them. Sucks for the shorter person who might have wanted less reach on their smaller frame. You have ample standover clearance with any bike frame you've mentioned in this thread, so why haven't you eliminated the 49cm, again?
Well I eliminated both the 49cm and 54cm! See attached stack and reach calculations with the BLUE bike being my current bike (Breezer Venturi). The Red bike is the 49cm Fuji Tourist and Green bike the 54cm.

Amazingly the stack and reach are off by 5cm on the 49cm and 3-4cm on the 54cm.
Attached Images
Inpd is offline  
Old 09-24-16, 11:34 PM
  #38  
ThermionicScott 
working on my sandal tan
 
ThermionicScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 22,140

Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers), All-City Space Horse (hers)

Mentioned: 95 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3672 Post(s)
Liked 2,143 Times in 1,353 Posts
Ah, it does sound like the WT in 56cm comes closest to what you have in your Breezer.
__________________
Originally Posted by chandltp View Post
There's no such thing as too far.. just lack of time
Originally Posted by noglider
People in this forum are not typical.
RUSA #7498
ThermionicScott is offline  
Old 09-25-16, 05:37 AM
  #39  
himespau 
Senior Member
 
himespau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 13,143
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3664 Post(s)
Liked 2,463 Times in 1,465 Posts
Yeah, I don't think you want something smaller than your breezer.
himespau is online now  
Old 09-25-16, 06:57 AM
  #40  
Inpd
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,825
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 401 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ThermionicScott View Post
Ah, it does sound like the WT in 56cm comes closest to what you have in your Breezer.
Actually its turns out not. The ETT of the 56cm is too big and the reach becomes too much.

The only way I can match the Breezer Venturi's reach and stack is to put a different stem on the smaller Fuji/Windsor by putting on a 120mm 25 degree stem (its a quill stem so these do exist).

So two questions:

i) What would be the effect of such a stem on the handling for touring.

ii) Should I really be trying to match the stack and reach of my road bike for a touring bike? Shouldn't I have a shorter reach and bigger stack (more upright)?

Last edited by Inpd; 09-25-16 at 07:14 AM.
Inpd is offline  
Old 09-25-16, 09:16 AM
  #41  
himespau 
Senior Member
 
himespau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 13,143
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3664 Post(s)
Liked 2,463 Times in 1,465 Posts
Originally Posted by Inpd View Post
ii) Should I really be trying to match the stack and reach of my road bike for a touring bike? Shouldn't I have a shorter reach and bigger stack (more upright)?
Can't you just put something like this on the 56?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B007BWR602...TU25AM95&psc=1
It would raise you up even more (or not, you just lower the stem), and it would bring the bars closer to you. Shouldn't affect handling unless you're riding with 50+ pounds up front.
himespau is online now  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
hanqa95
Touring
11
06-06-14 09:01 PM
RT
Touring
16
06-12-12 03:56 PM
dozyaustin
Touring
8
03-28-12 01:05 PM
Meek
Touring
1
10-10-11 09:29 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.