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 09-22-16, 06:22 PM
  #1  
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
Touring frame size weird TT/ST ratios

Hi

Normally I ride a road bike size 54 and am comfortable with an ETT of b/w 54-56 (I use a shorter stem if needed).

But the touring frame sets are weird. Often the ETT doesn't change much at all but the seat tube can change a lot.

One frameset I'm considering has these three options

Size Head Tube ETT Wheel base SO CS HT ST

49cm 100mm 545mm 1040mm 30" 440mm 70 73
54cm 120mm 555mm 1050mm 31" 440mm 70 73
56cm 140mm 565mm 1060mm 32" 440mm 71 73

Which one should I chose given the ETT are all within the boundaries I normally ride?

I heard you should size down for touring, should I go with the 49cm?

Last edited by Inpd; 09-22-16 at 08:11 PM.
Inpd is offline  
Old 09-22-16, 09:19 PM
  #2  
robow
Senior Member
 
robow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,716
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 517 Post(s)
Liked 201 Times in 136 Posts
I'll take a stab at it and say the 54 is your best option. How tall are you may I ask? If you go with the 49, your bars will likely be too low because the head tube will be shorter. Btw, I would argue against "touring bikes should be sized down" and feel that you should use what size and geometry fits you best PERIOD
robow is offline  
Old 09-22-16, 09:32 PM
  #3  
ThermionicScott 
working on my sandal tan
 
ThermionicScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 22,080

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: 3644 Post(s)
Liked 2,092 Times in 1,327 Posts
I don't buy the "size down for touring" thing at all, either. The contact points should meet your body where it makes the most sense for long rides. The bike that I do my (light) touring on uses about as big a frame as is prudent for me.
__________________
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 09-22-16, 09:34 PM
  #4  
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 robow View Post
I'll take a stab at it and say the 54 is your best option. How tall are you may I ask? If you go with the 49, your bars will likely be too low because the head tube will be shorter. Btw, I would argue against "touring bikes should be sized down" and feel that you should use what size and geometry fits you best PERIOD
Thanks @robow I appreciate it! Looking at the previous posts on this topic only confused me more.

Please let me know if the following is correct.

Touring frame sets are examples of what is referred to as compact geometries. Right?

Then as a 5 foot 10 with 32.5 inch inseam I should ride a size 50cm compact geometry as the ETT is 54.5mm. I did have a size 50cm semi-compact road bike and it fit rather well. The 54cm compact geometry of that bike (not the one I'm looking at now) had an ETT of 56.5cm which was too long for me.

But this frameset has me stumped as the ETT doesn't change much b/w the frame sizes and the 100mm head tube on the 49cm also has me worried.

My regular roads bike (not a compact frame) is size 54cm.

Last edited by Inpd; 09-22-16 at 09:44 PM.
Inpd is offline  
Old 09-22-16, 09:46 PM
  #5  
robow
Senior Member
 
robow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,716
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 517 Post(s)
Liked 201 Times in 136 Posts
5'10" and that inseam almost matches my own dimensions and I definitely would be looking at that 54 frame. The 49 is out, that's for smaller folks. You appear to have a slightly longer leg length vs. upper torso length for that height, much as myself and therefore I have to be careful of not going too long an effective top tube less I am forced to use too small a stem. Of course that forces me to deal with the shorter head tube which means I generally want the fork uncut so I can leave plenty of length for lots of spacers to get my bars up. You may like your bars well below your seat level and if so, even less compromise needed for you.
robow is offline  
Old 09-22-16, 10:19 PM
  #6  
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 robow View Post
5'10" and that inseam almost matches my own dimensions and I definitely would be looking at that 54 frame. The 49 is out, that's for smaller folks. You appear to have a slightly longer leg length vs. upper torso length for that height, much as myself and therefore I have to be careful of not going too long an effective top tube less I am forced to use too small a stem. Of course that forces me to deal with the shorter head tube which means I generally want the fork uncut so I can leave plenty of length for lots of spacers to get my bars up. You may like your bars well below your seat level and if so, even less compromise needed for you.
Everything you say makes sense but this frameset is weird. BTW its the Fuji tourist frameset which is the the Windsor Tourist frameset from all accounts.

The problem is that the 49cm ETT is 54.5cm with a 100mm HT and the 54cm ETT is 55.5cm with a 120mm HT.

The geometry chart is attached.
Attached Images

Last edited by Inpd; 09-25-16 at 09:13 PM.
Inpd is offline  
Old 09-22-16, 10:30 PM
  #7  
robow
Senior Member
 
robow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,716
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 517 Post(s)
Liked 201 Times in 136 Posts
Those specs above are hard for me to read but what you posted earlier doesn't match up with the present Fuji, because on the Fuji, I'm definitely a 56, I've ridden one and almost took it home.
Fuji Bikes | LIFESTYLE | CROSS TERRAIN | TOURING

Edit: At one time the Windsor and Fuji Tourer were in fact the same frame but doesn't seem like they are any longer.

Last edited by robow; 09-22-16 at 10:35 PM.
robow is offline  
Old 09-22-16, 10:41 PM
  #8  
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 robow View Post
Those specs above are hard for me to read but what you posted earlier doesn't match up with the present Fuji, because on the Fuji, I'm definitely a 56, I've ridden one and almost took it home.
Fuji Bikes | LIFESTYLE | CROSS TERRAIN | TOURING

Edit: At one time the Windsor and Fuji Tourer were in fact the same frame but doesn't seem like they are any longer.
Correct. The used to be the same but the geometry i posted is for the older Fuji and the current windsor.

I uploaded a better version of the geometry sheet.

Last edited by Inpd; 09-22-16 at 10:46 PM.
Inpd is offline  
Old 09-23-16, 05:10 AM
  #9  
bradtx
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Pearland, Texas
Posts: 7,579

Bikes: Cannondale, Trek, Raleigh, Santana

Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 307 Post(s)
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Inpd, I've read the recommendation for a touring frame to be smaller than one's current roadie size. This may apply to some, but my median size is 57-58 cm and my two touring bikes are 23" (.4 cm longer seat tube.), but with very similar ETT length as my roadies. Larger or smaller frames could've been tough to fit.

Comparing touring frames to roadies isn't quite apples to apples. Touring frames generally have very similar seat tube angles, but slacker head tube angles which can shorten ETT length a little on some models. Rider positioning is usually more upright on a touring frame than a roadie, in my case only slightly more upright.

I went with an ETT length as close as possible to my old 58 cm distance roadie.

Brad
bradtx is offline  
Old 09-23-16, 06:33 AM
  #10  
shelbyfv
Expired Member
 
shelbyfv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: TN
Posts: 10,140
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3012 Post(s)
Liked 3,923 Times in 1,999 Posts
The geometry chart doesn't seem to show reach, which may be your concern. A taller headtube will offset a longer ETT and will allow you to run fewer spacers. The Gunnar site has some good fit info. Bike Fit
shelbyfv is offline  
Old 09-23-16, 06:49 AM
  #11  
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
This is what confuses me.

Look at the 49 and 54cm versions ETT in the geometry chart.

The 49 has 545mm and the 54cm 555mm BUT the 54cm has a 20mm longer head tube which would negate the longer ETT right? So it seems they are very similar and I could get either?


Originally Posted by bradtx View Post
Inpd, I've read the recommendation for a touring frame to be smaller than one's current roadie size. This may apply to some, but my median size is 57-58 cm and my two touring bikes are 23" (.4 cm longer seat tube.), but with very similar ETT length as my roadies. Larger or smaller frames could've been tough to fit.

Comparing touring frames to roadies isn't quite apples to apples. Touring frames generally have very similar seat tube angles, but slacker head tube angles which can shorten ETT length a little on some models. Rider positioning is usually more upright on a touring frame than a roadie, in my case only slightly more upright.

I went with an ETT length as close as possible to my old 58 cm distance roadie.

Brad
Inpd is offline  
Old 09-23-16, 09:41 AM
  #12  
bradtx
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Pearland, Texas
Posts: 7,579

Bikes: Cannondale, Trek, Raleigh, Santana

Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 307 Post(s)
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Inpd, The 49 cm frame also has 1 degree less HT angle for stability with the shorter wheelbase which could reflect the minor difference in ETT length. The head tube on the 54 cm frame is simply longer to attach the higher positioned top tube.

Looking at this another way, it'll take more spacers on the steering tube and a higher positioned seat post to make the 49 fit. I still feel the 54 cm frame is better, non binding advice. (I also wonder about any toe overlap with the smaller frame.)

Ultimately the decision is yours, good luck.

Brad
bradtx is offline  
Old 09-23-16, 10:03 AM
  #13  
robow
Senior Member
 
robow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,716
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 517 Post(s)
Liked 201 Times in 136 Posts
Originally Posted by bradtx View Post
I still feel the 54 cm frame is better, non binding advice.
+1

5'10" men don't ride size 49 frames unless the design/geometry is quite unusual or the frame uniquely sized
Look at it this way, the 49 size is the smallest offered with 4 larger frames sizes available, do you feel the bike is only intended for those individuals 5'10" and taller, would be strange wouldn't it?

Last edited by robow; 09-23-16 at 10:07 AM.
robow is offline  
Old 09-23-16, 10:07 AM
  #14  
bikemig 
Senior Member
 
bikemig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Middle Earth (aka IA)
Posts: 19,613

Bikes: A bunch of old bikes and a few new ones

Mentioned: 169 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5530 Post(s)
Liked 2,490 Times in 1,601 Posts
I'd get the fuji touring over the bikes direct windsor. The price difference is negligible and I like the crank on the fuji better. The gearing is, I think, better on the fuji with a 48/36/26 and 11-34 on the rear. The bikes direct has a 130/74 bcd crank with less than great chainrings at 50/39/30 and 11-32 in the rear.
bikemig is offline  
Old 09-23-16, 10:27 AM
  #15  
robow
Senior Member
 
robow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,716
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 517 Post(s)
Liked 201 Times in 136 Posts
Originally Posted by bikemig View Post
I'd get the fuji touring over the bikes direct windsor. The price difference is negligible
As would I, you get a better warranty and real bike shop to stand behind it and help you out if needed (hopefully).

But.... you have to be willing to accept bar ends vs. Sti, both have +/-'s but that might be a deal breaker for some
robow is offline  
Old 09-23-16, 10:39 AM
  #16  
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 bradtx View Post
Inpd, The 49 cm frame also has 1 degree less HT angle for stability with the shorter wheelbase which could reflect the minor difference in ETT length. The head tube on the 54 cm frame is simply longer to attach the higher positioned top tube.

Looking at this another way, it'll take more spacers on the steering tube and a higher positioned seat post to make the 49 fit. I still feel the 54 cm frame is better, non binding advice. (I also wonder about any toe overlap with the smaller frame.)

Ultimately the decision is yours, good luck.

Brad
Thanks Brad. I just don't understand the effect of one bike having a 5cm longer ST but just 1cm ETT increase.

If it helps the TT (actual) for the 49 is 52.5cm and for the 54 is 54cm. Stand over is 30 and 31 inches respectively.

Unfortunately touring bikes are so rare they aren't in the LBSs at all.
Inpd is offline  
Old 09-23-16, 10:43 AM
  #17  
Jarrett2
Senior Member
 
Jarrett2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: DFW
Posts: 4,126

Bikes: Steel 1x's

Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 632 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
On no one's suggestion, I went a size up on my touring bike just to ensure I had plenty of room with the bags attached. And I do.
Jarrett2 is offline  
Old 09-23-16, 10:52 AM
  #18  
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 Jarrett2 View Post
On no one's suggestion, I went a size up on my touring bike just to ensure I had plenty of room with the bags attached. And I do.
Ah. That's an interesting point. The Fuji tourist frameset has 440mm chain stays for all sizes so will a larger bike really give you more space for your rear panniers?

For front panniers I see your point and the added length will help in stability.
Inpd is offline  
Old 09-23-16, 11:13 AM
  #19  
robow
Senior Member
 
robow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,716
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 517 Post(s)
Liked 201 Times in 136 Posts
Originally Posted by Inpd View Post
The Fuji tourist frameset has 440mm chain stays for all sizes so will a larger bike really give you more space for your rear panniers?
Nope, and you might actually reduce clearance for rear panniers by going up in size because the crank length may have been increased for the larger frame size so theoretically you could lose 5mm.
robow is offline  
Old 09-23-16, 11:28 AM
  #20  
fietsbob
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NW,Oregon Coast
Posts: 43,599

Bikes: 8

Mentioned: 197 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7607 Post(s)
Liked 1,339 Times in 847 Posts
You talking Horizontal, or Sloping top tube?

Sloping ; stand flat footed over the middle of the top tube, ahead of the saddle.

you want the same clearance, there as you would , on a horizontal top tube frame.
fietsbob is offline  
Old 09-23-16, 11:34 AM
  #21  
Doug64
Senior Member
 
Doug64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Oregon
Posts: 6,383
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1131 Post(s)
Liked 688 Times in 371 Posts
I have to agree with most of the folks here, that the 49 cm frame would almost certainly be too small for a 5'10" person. One 5'5" daughter rides a 50 cm, 26 "LHT, Our 4'11 daughter rides a 42 cm, 26" LHT, and my 5'3' wife rides a 47 cm, 700c custom built bike. I'm a little over 5'11" and all my bikes are in the 57-58 cm range. It seems to me you'd fit somewhere in the middle.

I think the relatively long top tubes on the Fuji and Windsor's small frame bikes are to reduce the amount of toe overlap with 700c wheels. Other manufacturers build their small frame bike to utilize 26" wheels which allows them to design it with a shorter top tube, and reduces the amount of toe overlap. I never thought I'd ever say that Surly TT are short. IMO they are relatively long compared to many other brands of bikes.

I think the point folks are working hard to point out is that you loose adjustment flexibility with the small frame bikes. A 5'10" person on a 49 cm frame will have the seat pretty high for the correct saddle height. Unfortunately, the bar height may not have enough adjustment to get proper bar height. I believe both the Fuji and Windsor bikes use treaded steering tubes which may give a little more bar height adjustment, but will it be enough?

5'5" daughter on 50 cm Surly Long Haul Trucker. While she fits it well she could have easily gone to a 52 cm bike. Surly can get shorter ETT lengths by going to 26" wheels on their touring bikes smaller than 54 cm.

I'd suggest you try out any bike with a 49-50 cm frame and see how it feels.

Last edited by Doug64; 09-23-16 at 11:44 AM.
Doug64 is offline  
Old 09-23-16, 12:20 PM
  #22  
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
Thank you all for all the help.

Firstly, let me say I've got to ask you for tips on how you get your older daughters to tour with you. I have two children 7 and 10 and though they ride with me (upto 35 miles) every week that's more because I told them to and I'm not sure they'll want to when older.

Originally Posted by Doug64 View Post
I have to agree with most of the folks here, that the 49 cm frame would almost certainly be too small for a 5'10" person. One 5'5" daughter rides a 50 cm, 26 "LHT, Our 4'11 daughter rides a 42 cm, 26" LHT, and my 5'3' wife rides a 47 cm, 700c custom built bike. I'm a little over 5'11" and all my bikes are in the 57-58 cm range. It seems to me you'd fit somewhere in the middle.
Looking at the Surly website it seems its a semi-compact frameset with the ETT of the 50cm frame being only 52.5cm and the 54cm frame has an ETT to match the 49cm Fuji Tourist frameset.


Originally Posted by Doug64 View Post
I'd suggest you try out any bike with a 49-50 cm frame and see how it feels.
I completely forgot. I rode many centuries on a 50cm compact frameset and it felt great, but I never toured with it. The bike was a BD Dawes Lightening.

Here is the geometry comparison. They look identical except the Dawes has a 5cm longer HT.



Dawes Fuji
SEAT TUBE, CENTER TO TOP 500 490
ACTUAL TOP TUBE LENGTH 523.8 525
EFFECTIVE TOP TUBE LENGTH 545 544.7
CHAIN STAY 420 440
BB DROP 71.1 80
FORK OFFSET 45 60
HEAD TUBE ANGLE 72.5 70
SEAT TUBE ANGLE 73.5 73
WHEEL BASE 994.3 1042.1
STAND OVER HEIGHT 781.9 757.8
BB HEIGHT 268.4
FORK STEERER LENGTH 246
HEAD TUBE LENGTH 156 100
STEM LENGTH 100 90
STEM ANGLE ADJ 0
HANDLEBAR WIDTH 420 420
HANDLEBAR RISE NA NA
CRANK LENGTH 172.5 170
SEAT POST DIAMETER 27.2 27.2
Inpd is offline  
Old 09-23-16, 01:00 PM
  #23  
ThermionicScott 
working on my sandal tan
 
ThermionicScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 22,080

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: 3644 Post(s)
Liked 2,092 Times in 1,327 Posts
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.
__________________
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 09-23-16, 01:20 PM
  #24  
himespau 
Senior Member
 
himespau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 13,047
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3566 Post(s)
Liked 2,340 Times in 1,389 Posts
Originally Posted by Jarrett2 View Post
On no one's suggestion, I went a size up on my touring bike just to ensure I had plenty of room with the bags attached. And I do.
I've heard sizing up as well. Especially if you're going to be a bit more upright, you want to make sure you have a long enough head tube. I can't imagine a head tube of 120 mm.
himespau is offline  
Old 09-23-16, 01:23 PM
  #25  
36Oly_Rider
Senior Member
 
36Oly_Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 345

Bikes: Black Beauty; The Lone Ranger; Samsquantch

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Dang, I must be disproportionate. I'm 5'7" and ride a 54 road bike. I am on the cusp of 52 and 54, but with a 31" inseam and long arms, I'm more comfortable on a 54 in the drops where the 52 I felt cramped. I did size down to a 52 on the Kona and used a 90mm stem instead of a 100mm. With the longer wheelbase and bigger tires, I was stretching pretty good, but it is a way different geometry than my Tarmac. I do have about a 1.5" clearance on my stand over height when wearing my bibshorts on 700c X 35 tires about 3/4 to an inch in regular pants shorts.
36Oly_Rider is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.