A question about bike sizes.
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
A question about bike sizes.
The first "nice" road bike that I had as an adult was a 54cm Peugeot, vintage, PR series tat I hapened upon purely by chance. At the time I didn't re;I've that it was "too small" for me and that, acording to the charts and the way that I felt on a bike, at least vintage ones, I was best suited to a 58cm frame, fully two sized larger than what I had. So, I sold it and got a more modern, 58cm Trek 1500. It was, as you can imagine, a much nicer bike than the old Peugeot, if a little more "generic". The problem was that, despite the internet and the 58cm vintage bike I had been riding, telling me that a 58 was the thing, it wasn't and it was too big and got sold. Then, along came my bike now, a Specialized Tricross in 56. It's perfect. No issues. Its set up for general use and I wanted a "race bike" so I got ahold of a Roubaix of a similar vintage, thinking that it was a 56 and i am perfectly comfortable on it and content and it's really a 54. The exact same size that was "too small" for me initially. To test weather or not I've drunk or someting I got a ride on that vintage 58 and it still seems to fit me fine, but going up to a vintage 60cm isn't going to work at all. How can I be so random in what I think "fits" me and wat doesn't?
__________________
1980ish Raleigh Marathon (Vintage Steel)
2006 Trek 820 (Captain Amazing)
2010 Specialized Tricross (Back in Black)
2008 Specialized Roubaix
"I'm built like a marine mammal. I love the cold! "-Cosmoline
"MTBing is cheap compared to any motorsport I've done. It's very expensive compared to jogging."-ColinL
Rides:1980ish Raleigh Marathon (Vintage Steel)
2006 Trek 820 (Captain Amazing)
2010 Specialized Tricross (Back in Black)
2008 Specialized Roubaix
#2
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,095 Times
in
5,053 Posts
The first "nice" road bike that I had as an adult was a 54cm Peugeot, vintage, PR series tat I hapened upon purely by chance. At the time I didn't re;I've that it was "too small" for me and that, acording to the charts and the way that I felt on a bike, at least vintage ones, I was best suited to a 58cm frame, fully two sized larger than what I had. So, I sold it and got a more modern, 58cm Trek 1500. It was, as you can imagine, a much nicer bike than the old Peugeot, if a little more "generic". The problem was that, despite the internet and the 58cm vintage bike I had been riding, telling me that a 58 was the thing, it wasn't and it was too big and got sold. Then, along came my bike now, a Specialized Tricross in 56. It's perfect. No issues. Its set up for general use and I wanted a "race bike" so I got ahold of a Roubaix of a similar vintage, thinking that it was a 56 and i am perfectly comfortable on it and content and it's really a 54. The exact same size that was "too small" for me initially. To test weather or not I've drunk or someting I got a ride on that vintage 58 and it still seems to fit me fine, but going up to a vintage 60cm isn't going to work at all. How can I be so random in what I think "fits" me and wat doesn't?
I also like that the bigger bike is my Giant. It certainly looks like one next to my Spesh.
#3
The dropped
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 2,144
Bikes: Pake C'Mute Touring/Commuter Build, 1989 Kona Cinder Cone, 1995 Trek 5200, 1973 Raleigh Super Course FG, 1960/61 Montgomery Ward Hawthorne "thrift" 3 speed, by Hercules (sold) : 1966 Schwinn Deluxe Racer (sold)
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1739 Post(s)
Liked 1,014 Times
in
696 Posts
Some advice that keeps popping up on the forums here is that the top tube length (virtual TT is better) is more of a final 'bike size' measure as opposed to the seat tube. You have more adjustment in your seatpost than you do with stem length. While seat to pedal is absolutely critical for performance and efficiency, the top tube length is acceptable even if you place too much weight on your hands.
I paid for a bike fitting at a local bike shop, and I believe that the knowledge of recommended frame proportions has paid dividends in my [self destructive addiction] adventure into cycling. You can make some precise measurements at home with some help and use online calculators to approximate what you should look for, and then pay attention to geometry tables when shopping.
'Vintage' road frames were frequently described as 'square' meaning the top tube is parallel with the ground. The top tube length was frequently proportioned (within a size bracket) to the seat tube length. Modern bikes utilizing sloping top tubes still measure center to center for the seat tube, rather than to the imaginary point where a horizontal top tube will join an extended seat tube. The result is that a '52cm' frame might have a 55.5cm virtual top tube, and ride like a 'square' 56cm. I use the geometry charts and the virtual top tube length to figure out a bike's 'true' size, but I only know what sizes to look for because of the bike fitting. To help you evaluate bikes for yourself, compare the geometries of the bikes, with the emphasis on where the saddle is in relation to the bottom bracket and handlebars. A long level is useful when you're top tube is sloping.
I paid for a bike fitting at a local bike shop, and I believe that the knowledge of recommended frame proportions has paid dividends in my [self destructive addiction] adventure into cycling. You can make some precise measurements at home with some help and use online calculators to approximate what you should look for, and then pay attention to geometry tables when shopping.
'Vintage' road frames were frequently described as 'square' meaning the top tube is parallel with the ground. The top tube length was frequently proportioned (within a size bracket) to the seat tube length. Modern bikes utilizing sloping top tubes still measure center to center for the seat tube, rather than to the imaginary point where a horizontal top tube will join an extended seat tube. The result is that a '52cm' frame might have a 55.5cm virtual top tube, and ride like a 'square' 56cm. I use the geometry charts and the virtual top tube length to figure out a bike's 'true' size, but I only know what sizes to look for because of the bike fitting. To help you evaluate bikes for yourself, compare the geometries of the bikes, with the emphasis on where the saddle is in relation to the bottom bracket and handlebars. A long level is useful when you're top tube is sloping.
Last edited by Unca_Sam; 11-19-19 at 09:06 AM.
#4
Junior Member
The first "nice" road bike that I had as an adult was a 54cm Peugeot, vintage, PR series tat I hapened upon purely by chance. At the time I didn't re;I've that it was "too small" for me and that, acording to the charts and the way that I felt on a bike, at least vintage ones, I was best suited to a 58cm frame, fully two sized larger than what I had. So, I sold it and got a more modern, 58cm Trek 1500. It was, as you can imagine, a much nicer bike than the old Peugeot, if a little more "generic". The problem was that, despite the internet and the 58cm vintage bike I had been riding, telling me that a 58 was the thing, it wasn't and it was too big and got sold. Then, along came my bike now, a Specialized Tricross in 56. It's perfect. No issues. Its set up for general use and I wanted a "race bike" so I got ahold of a Roubaix of a similar vintage, thinking that it was a 56 and i am perfectly comfortable on it and content and it's really a 54. The exact same size that was "too small" for me initially. To test weather or not I've drunk or someting I got a ride on that vintage 58 and it still seems to fit me fine, but going up to a vintage 60cm isn't going to work at all. How can I be so random in what I think "fits" me and wat doesn't?
#5
Señor Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,066
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 649 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times
in
215 Posts
There are two issues you are experiencing - (1) Different manufacturers and different eras measure bikes differently, and different manufacturers will build based on different philosophies of fit - even if Trek and Cannondale both intend their 56 cm bike to work for someone 180cm tall, the bike will fit differently. Also, around the turn of the last century, most manufacturers went from traditional 'level top tube' geometry to 'sloping top tube' geometry, and if you try to use the same dimension to identify the size of a bike as you used on a 1980s Peugeot 10 speed to select a 2019 gravel bike, you may be totally out of whack. In 'level top tube' bikes I generally need a 62-64 cm, but the modern 'XL' bikes that I have found that fit me might be called 60cm or 58 cm (or simply 'XL')
And (2) fit charts are usually fine for getting you in the 'ballpark', but all people are different - different thigh/shin length ratio, different leg/torso ratio, different torso/arm ratio, and (just as importantly) different flexibility and expectation of comfort.
Now that you know how you prefer your bike to fit, you never need to look at a fitting chart again, and you can do some simple measurements (or look up the geometry charts for your bike) and compare any potential new bikes to your known-good-fitting bike. In sizing charts, the most important dimensions are 'stack' (vertical distance from bottom bracket to the top of the head tube) and 'reach' (horizontal distance from the bottom bracket to the top of the head tube). If these two0 dimensions are close to those of a bike you know to fit, then it can almost definitely be dialled in to fit you.
And (2) fit charts are usually fine for getting you in the 'ballpark', but all people are different - different thigh/shin length ratio, different leg/torso ratio, different torso/arm ratio, and (just as importantly) different flexibility and expectation of comfort.
Now that you know how you prefer your bike to fit, you never need to look at a fitting chart again, and you can do some simple measurements (or look up the geometry charts for your bike) and compare any potential new bikes to your known-good-fitting bike. In sizing charts, the most important dimensions are 'stack' (vertical distance from bottom bracket to the top of the head tube) and 'reach' (horizontal distance from the bottom bracket to the top of the head tube). If these two0 dimensions are close to those of a bike you know to fit, then it can almost definitely be dialled in to fit you.
#6
The dropped
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 2,144
Bikes: Pake C'Mute Touring/Commuter Build, 1989 Kona Cinder Cone, 1995 Trek 5200, 1973 Raleigh Super Course FG, 1960/61 Montgomery Ward Hawthorne "thrift" 3 speed, by Hercules (sold) : 1966 Schwinn Deluxe Racer (sold)
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1739 Post(s)
Liked 1,014 Times
in
696 Posts
Hooray for consensus!
You're not drunk, what you have experienced is normal!
You're not drunk, what you have experienced is normal!
#7
Veteran, Pacifist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 13,325
Bikes: Bikes??? Thought this was social media?!?
Mentioned: 284 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3897 Post(s)
Liked 4,823 Times
in
2,226 Posts
Different saddles, posts and bars are often overlooked as contributors to an unexpected outcome with fit and deserve scrutiny when evaluating a change in bikes or cockpit components.
modern saddles may be longer and narrower than vintage.
posts = setback or not?
bars have different reach, drop, bends, etc
edit: I comfortably ride many bikes ranging from 58 - 63cm frame sizes.
modern saddles may be longer and narrower than vintage.
posts = setback or not?
bars have different reach, drop, bends, etc
edit: I comfortably ride many bikes ranging from 58 - 63cm frame sizes.
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,547
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18349 Post(s)
Liked 4,502 Times
in
3,346 Posts
Some advice that keeps popping up on the forums here is that the top tube length (virtual TT is better) is more of a final 'bike size' measure as opposed to the seat tube. You have more adjustment in your seatpost than you do with stem length. While seat to pedal is absolutely critical for performance and efficiency, the top tube length is acceptable even if you place too much weight on your hands.
I paid for a bike fitting at a local bike shop, and I believe that the knowledge of recommended frame proportions has paid dividends in my [self destructive addiction] adventure into cycling. You can make some precise measurements at home with some help and use online calculators to approximate what you should look for, and then pay attention to geometry tables when shopping.
'Vintage' road frames were frequently described as 'square' meaning the top tube is parallel with the ground. The top tube length was frequently proportioned (within a size bracket) to the seat tube length. Modern bikes utilizing sloping top tubes still measure center to center for the seat tube, rather than to the imaginary point where a horizontal top tube will join an extended seat tube. The result is that a '52cm' frame might have a 55.5cm virtual top tube, and ride like a 'square' 56cm. I use the geometry charts and the virtual top tube length to figure out a bike's 'true' size, but I only know what sizes to look for because of the bike fitting. To help you evaluate bikes for yourself, compare the geometries of the bikes, with the emphasis on where the saddle is in relation to the bottom bracket and handlebars. A long level is useful when you're top tube is sloping.
I paid for a bike fitting at a local bike shop, and I believe that the knowledge of recommended frame proportions has paid dividends in my [self destructive addiction] adventure into cycling. You can make some precise measurements at home with some help and use online calculators to approximate what you should look for, and then pay attention to geometry tables when shopping.
'Vintage' road frames were frequently described as 'square' meaning the top tube is parallel with the ground. The top tube length was frequently proportioned (within a size bracket) to the seat tube length. Modern bikes utilizing sloping top tubes still measure center to center for the seat tube, rather than to the imaginary point where a horizontal top tube will join an extended seat tube. The result is that a '52cm' frame might have a 55.5cm virtual top tube, and ride like a 'square' 56cm. I use the geometry charts and the virtual top tube length to figure out a bike's 'true' size, but I only know what sizes to look for because of the bike fitting. To help you evaluate bikes for yourself, compare the geometries of the bikes, with the emphasis on where the saddle is in relation to the bottom bracket and handlebars. A long level is useful when you're top tube is sloping.
But, in general, the length of the top tube seems to be the most representative.
However, one can look at riding the bicycle as 3 contact points.
Pedals (bottom bracket), Saddle, and handlebars.
You can make a bunch of adjustments. Stem length, stem height, saddle height, saddle fore & aft, crank length, etc.
The OP didn't mention his height. I'm not convinced a high top tube is a major problem, at least for riding on the road. Unless, ou are trying to do a top-tube descent.
At stop lights, I take one foot off the pedals, and sit one cheek on the top tube, and it is nice to have it a bit high. But, riding, you're not on the top tube.
Stack Height will affect bar drop if that is a concern.
#9
Mad bike riding scientist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,341
Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones
Mentioned: 152 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6200 Post(s)
Liked 4,200 Times
in
2,357 Posts
I would posit a third issue...habit. People get "used" to the way a bike fits and have trouble changing. I've had to fight that problem for more than 40 years. Not me...I fit any 58cm road and any 19" mountain bike that is made without issue...but my wife. My wife is a very tiny 5' tall. Her first bike was a Sears "10 speed" and was a 27" (in other words it had 27" wheels). The frame was closer to my size or about a 23". She figured out how to ride it as a kid and when we got into bicycling, we got something closer to her size (still too big) and it didn't feel right. She was used to riding a huge bike.
As we upgraded, the bikes she could get were still to big...the smallest sizes up until a few years ago was a 49cm. When manufacturers finally got enlightened and started making smaller bikes, her "actual" size of 43cm felt far to small. She has the proper sized bike now and it feels "normal" but it was a long road to get her to actually accept what was right.
As we upgraded, the bikes she could get were still to big...the smallest sizes up until a few years ago was a 49cm. When manufacturers finally got enlightened and started making smaller bikes, her "actual" size of 43cm felt far to small. She has the proper sized bike now and it feels "normal" but it was a long road to get her to actually accept what was right.
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
#10
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Thanks guys. I'm glad to know that my imagination isn't playing tricks on me! I was OK in the 56-58 "range" thing but when my latest new-to-me turned out to be a 54 (by my measurements, not a manufacturer's sticker) it left me bewildered. Now I need to ride more and obsess less and i'll be good to go.
__________________
1980ish Raleigh Marathon (Vintage Steel)
2006 Trek 820 (Captain Amazing)
2010 Specialized Tricross (Back in Black)
2008 Specialized Roubaix
"I'm built like a marine mammal. I love the cold! "-Cosmoline
"MTBing is cheap compared to any motorsport I've done. It's very expensive compared to jogging."-ColinL
Rides:1980ish Raleigh Marathon (Vintage Steel)
2006 Trek 820 (Captain Amazing)
2010 Specialized Tricross (Back in Black)
2008 Specialized Roubaix
#11
Señor Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,066
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 649 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times
in
215 Posts
The way the OP described their attempts with different size and manufacturers, though, I don't think this is the case here.
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 5,920
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1814 Post(s)
Liked 1,692 Times
in
973 Posts
Your experience is normal. There is no standard in bicycle sizing, sometimes even within the same brand, especially when comparing frames from different years. What fits really depends on overall geometry of the frame and your riding preferences. You will no doubt continue to discover that you are comfortable on a range of bike “sizes.” Happy cycling!
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lebanon (Liberty Hill), CT
Posts: 8,473
Bikes: CAAD 12, MASI Gran Criterium S, Colnago World Cup CX & Guru steel
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1743 Post(s)
Liked 1,279 Times
in
739 Posts
With the advent of SST it's a bit harder to know what a designated size really is. I just bought a CAAD12 in size 52. After 40 yrs. of cycling I know I can ride 54-56. But, the CAAD12 fits perfectly. How can that be? Well, using a level and tape measure I "leveled" the TT (virtually) and measured the frame again......54 actual.
#14
Senior Member
Getting the right frame size is much easier, now that most brands publish the stack and reach. Those two values tell the story. It makes no difference what the size number is.
The only other thing to pay attention to is the seat tube angle. I ride smaller sizes that nearly always have a 74 to 74.5 degree STA and either one will work with a 25mm setback post. If the bike has a steeper 75 degree STA, I'd need a 32mm setback and I avoid that.
The only other thing to pay attention to is the seat tube angle. I ride smaller sizes that nearly always have a 74 to 74.5 degree STA and either one will work with a 25mm setback post. If the bike has a steeper 75 degree STA, I'd need a 32mm setback and I avoid that.