Originally Posted by
ezmiller
@
masi61 thanks for the very instructive response. The mention of Greg LeMonde's book is nice. I will check it out. I think the simple rule of .883 x the inseam + the idea of a "square" frame as a baseline, which may not be what everyone wants is an interesting place to start from.
You said that you began to realize that you liked a smaller frame. Did you mean smaller in the sense of still "square" and so smaller in both the top tube and the seat tube, or did you mean not following Le Monde's preference for longer top tubes? Is the overall effect of the smaller sizing to sacrifice comfort for power/leverage?
I did a fit experiment on a sloping top tube titanium framed "Veritas" road bike that I purchased a few years back that I knew was 2 sizes too small for me. I was going to sell it to a friend who is 5'8" for what I paid for it ($675) but he felt this was too much money so I stored it in my rec room for a couple years before it occurred to me that I should get a proper (tall) seatpost and a longer stem with a slight upward rise to it and try it out. I am 5'-11.5" tall and probably need a bike with a top tube length between 55 and 57 cm but this bike's top tube is 54.5. The seat tube is like 13 inches center to top ! Anybody who sees this would say it is a bit small for me. I can post photos of it. It is a pretty cool bike. This bike I do not believe adheres to a square frame baseline.
When I talked about Greg Lemond's advice it was mainly from the standpoint of using a smaller frame with at least a 12 cm or even a 13 cm stem and then establishing the proper saddle height. I am at work right now and can post an update later.