modelmartin

What a coincidence. I have put 9000 miles on my 89 Technum PRE since I got it 4 years ago. Love that bike!

OldsCOOL

I ride 3 bikes of varying sizes. My fit is 54cm. The Trek 760 is one size small and the Colnago is one size big. My main rider is the '88 Cannondale Criterium Series that fits me perfectly and is a trip to ride. All bikes have a shorter top tube fit.

OldsCOOL

I have an '89 PRE from 4yrs ago. Nice bike.

horatio 

I think varies by make and model. I had a 58cm Bianchi that felt just right, but could not tolerate a 58cm Ironman, even with my standardized saddle position and reach. I've been 'fitted' for a 54cm frame (and own several) but prefer my 55cm bikes. I'm in the process of rebuilding a 57cm Ciocc. It fits quite well. I am 5'9" tall, with a 30" inseam.

Ed.

59.5, ST, crotch to floor = 32". (that dimension was reduced between time of order and receipt of frame). It feels fine when riding, but it's pretty 'close' if you get what I mean. The seat is actually higher now, at least 1/2" - new shoes and pedals.

non-fixie 

That looks pretty much perfect to me, size-wise. The extra 1/2" would just about 'liberate' the seat post flutes, I presume? Even better.

Nice SBDU Raleigh, BTW.

Standalone 

That bike is not too big for you. That is just what straight, horizontal top tubes look like. I'm replying before reading every other response, and I'm surely being repetitive, but "a fistful of seatpost" is about right with old school geometry.

Look up "French fit" and you'll see that your frame may be considered by some to be actually too small! I'm inclined to be one of them.

Hoss Cartright

I'm 5' 10" and 30 inseam.. I've always ridden a 24" frame. My Mercian is a 25" and it's a pinch when stand-over, but beggars can't be choosers. My biggest recent change since the 1970s was going to 44cm width on the bars, as I am broad across the chest, this made the biggest comfort improvement overall.

Had a fitting done on my Bob Jackson and it is the "best fit" bike I own. I had it set-up almost perfectly, but had a fit coupon and figured I'd give it a try to see how far off my 1970s set-up knowledge was by today's standards.

I agree about the top tube being more important. I've found some vintage 80mm Cinelli stems to replace the 120mm ones that came on my 24" Paramounts and they feel a lot better. Not so much reach, much more comfortable

The Mercian is my tallest bike and even then, the saddle is not that low in comparison to what I've seen, but as you can see, I have a very short stem to compensate for the longer top tube


My 24" Paramounts are now setup just right.




My Jackson is the smallest bike I ride and this is how it looks after a computerized professional fitting shown with the only change we made which was a shorter stem and the 44cm Nitto Noodle bars. Greg that did the fitting said that if I were to custom order a frame, the Jackson would have been exactly it..

tarwheel 

I can ride larger frames as long as the top tube is not too long. That is the critical dimension for me, followed closely by head tube (steerer) length. Seat tube length is nearly irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. My bikes all have 56-57 top tubes. I picked up a used Gunnar Crosshairs a couple of years ago with a 58 top tube and I could never get comfortable on it, so I sold the frame.

RobbieTunes

Based on what bike shops tell me, all of my bikes are too big, but I've been riding 56cm for 20+ years, so I guess I'll continue.
I'm 5'6" and wear a 30" inseam trouser. Shops tell me a 54cm at the largest. When I ride one, people tell me the bike looks small.

One of the reasons I stick to an Ironman, but in the last couple of years, I've gone to zero-setback seat posts.
So, for me, it's a 56cm TT, 0-setback post, and 90mm stems with Nitto or Cinelli bars, I'm basically 650mm c-ST to C-bar top.

I've tried a few 54cm bikes, not sure what the top tubes were. I'm going to try again, a 54cm Ironman, with a 55cm TT.
I should be just fine with a 20mm setback seat post and 80mm stem. This will give me the same 650mm c-ST to C-bar top.
We'll just have to see how sitting back farther feels. Should be fine.

I've learned a lot about tweaking my saddle, and now carry a tool kit on my shakedown rides to fine tune the fit.

It seems the modern "method" now is to go with smaller frames and the longer stems. I don't particularly care for that.

noglider 

If you have a way of dismounting safely, it doesn't matter how high your top tube is. Really. Only snobs will tell you you're doing something wrong if it feels right while you're in motion.

I'm having back problems and am thinking of replacing most of my bikes with bigger bikes. Or maybe I'll just put upright handlebars on most of them. Or something.

non-fixie 

Looking at this picture, I'd say there's room for an extra inch or so without compromising the touch points.

I like that Mercian, BTW.

1989Pre 

Yep, that's one reason why I like the big frame: It gives me a slight stretch of the spine, which, of course, is an essential thing to do for health.

due ruote 

Bartali and Coppi, both pretty fair riders I think.

seboros

I'm 6'2'' or 188 cm high and ride 62 and 64 steel frames. The 62 seems perfect, the 64 has a 12 cm long stem and I feel a bit streched probably because of this reason. Not uncomfortable, though. Also, my handlebars are set with the lower part level with the ground (and with the top tube). If I were to rotate them upwards a bit, the reach to the hoods would be more comfortable, but I don't like that look.

There is a science of bike fitting. I saw a video where the fitter used laser beams to check that the rider's knees move in a straight vertical direction. After fitting there were real results. The pedaling power improved by a few percents. But I wonder if personal preference doesn't play a much larger role. After all, the human body is a very maleable machine. At first you may feel pain and uncomfort learning to use a new tool, but with repetition the moves become second nature and comfort settles in. My wife is younger and way more flexible than I am (and also doesn't have my back problems) yet she finds it really uncomfortable to ride a road bike.

embankmentlb

My fear is that as I get older my bikes that fit me now will all feel too small. At some point I will need a case of those extra tall Nitto stems.

CannedPakes

I'm 5'7, but have a 32" inseam so I'm usually comfortable on a bigger frame with short stem.

non-fixie 

The understatement of the day.

Interesting comparison, BTW. Here's a pic of Jan Nolten, one of the few riders who could give Coppi a run for his money. See what you think of his choice of frame size ...

Lazyass

Look at his leg extension. Or lack thereof. I ride with my saddle a little lower than average but damn.

CO_Hoya 

I've seen that picture before and always wondered if he was on a borrowed frame - i.e. from a teammate due to a mechanical. I don't know if that was allowed BITD.

It seems so undersized.

Salamandrine 

I've not scene it discussed before, but the recommended saddle position used to be much lower than used now. The idea was that you could spin better. That formula often used today would have been considered radically high.

bobbyl1966

I am 5` 7" 32 ineam online bike size carculator say i need 55cm bike. On force pedal the bike fit tell me i need bike C-C 53.-6cm T-T 53.6 cm. I used to ride one bike is was 63 cm i sold that bike. Now my bike is 56cm 57cm and 58 cm. My mountain bike is 18"

CuttersRidge

Greg Lemond writes in his cycling manual that Sean Kelly rode in a cramped position.

OldsCOOL

I ride in very similar fashion when cranking hard in an in-the-saddle interval.

SJX426 

I am 5' 11" + and ride frames between 58 and 61. My GTF length is 35." My favorite ride right now is a 60, which I think might be my sweet spot. The largest frame I ride is not C&V but you asked!

[IMG]P1030370, on Flickr[/IMG]

OK you twisted my arm for the favorite:
[IMG]P1020127, on Flickr[/IMG]

More than a fistful on both