oldbobcat

Bike fitting has become a lot more sophisticated since those funky days of "let's see how high you can straddle without squeezing your junk." That could work in the old days when most of us got started because bikes mostly just got taller as they got larger. Nowadays, we have proportional geometries, which means they get longer, too.

While I believe everyone should ride a bike whose top tube can be straddled comfortably, after that, it's a matter of matching top tube and stem lengths to the rider's torso and arm length and posture. F'rinstance, I know if my top tube and stem add up to something between 69 and 70 cm, and the handlebar doesn't have too much reach, I'm going to be just fine.

dougmon 

Actually I've resolved the bar height problem -- with a smaller-framed bike of the same model. It's amazing how mounts and dismounts are suddenly easier. And now that I have an appropriately sized bike, I want to ride more. (Big surprise, eh?)

I was going to talk about the down side, but then I realized there is no down side.

h2oxtc

Last year my wife and I visited Montreal and rented bikes for a cycling event. Our son also rode with us, also on a rented bike. He's 3 inches taller than I so I got him an XL frame size, while I rode an L. As you can imagine, it wasn't too convenient or practical to do a complete bike fit setup for a one day ride. But the most interesting thing I learned is that while my son is 3 inches taller, his legs are shorter - meaning his height is made up in his torso. Yet to complicate the matter further he has proportionately short arms. Now before you all make funny jokes or post cartoons - he's actually quite striking in visual appearance and has been a featured model in several Montreal fashion magazines. And here I thought I could bequeath my bikes to him some day. Guess that's not going to happen. What I failed to consider is that perhaps it's MY body geometry that's strange, not his. I must have long legs, short torso, and lanky arms. Now you can post the cartoons!

dougmon 

Since starting to cycle (almost an entire week now), I've talked with and heard from lots of people with short inseams who say it makes it difficult to fit a bike for them. I've also seen a lot of people standing next to their bikes, and it's obvious they would have zero to very little clearance when standing aside their bikes. Um, I forget what my point was...oh, yeah, there are some body types that can't be conveniently fit into a standard geometry. At least that's my thinking.

---------------

I don't have a signature, but if I did, it would probably be "I'm not a cyclist. I'm just a guy with a bike."

qcpmsame 

I'm one of those short legged guys, my height is 6'-1", but I have a 32" inseam. My wife is 5'-3½" (I have to put the half inch in, she gets upset about being "shorted") and she has the same inseam length as I do. I actually used on of her bikes back in the mid 80s, while I was bike-less for a few years. The top tube was short, those quill stems offered less choices than we get now, but I could ride during that bleak period.

I can remember the LBS sizing you for a bike back in the early 70s, they had you do the straddle the to tube thing, lift the bike up until it touched your pubis. It should have about 2" clearance, according to the experts, back in the day. Then, they had you place your arm along the top tube with your elbow against the nose of the saddle, and your finger tips against the bars. If it was the same length, you kept that stem. I once asked why they didn't move the saddle along its rails, that drew a stern disapproving glare from the expert.

Actually, there were not a lot of varying length stems in stock, out in the sticks where I still live, we would go through the Schwinn, or Raleigh parts books to find longer, or shorter stems from varying size bikes. I read one of the few books available, that had something about sizing and fitting, in 1979, it was an eye opener for me (Sloans, I ordered a copy from the local bookstore quickly, I still have a copy, just not the same edition.)

I was pleasantly surprised when I came back to cycling to find that shops actually wanted to fit me to the bicycle, and would make changes before I took a bike home. Much different from doing this myself, without really knowing that I was doing a "Fitting" back in my younger days, long, long ago.

End of long, winded post, sorry for slobbering down memory lane.

Bill

dougmon 

Ha! My wife is a quarter-inch short of 5 feet, but damnit, she's five feet tall!

All this stuff about fitting is interesting. The bike shop did do a fitting (but only for riding, they said), and it's very comfortable while I'm riding it. And it's amazing what losing an inch-and-a-quarter does for me. I'm far more comfortable ( or less scared ), and the dismounts are much easier. The bike is 52 or 53 (cm?), depending on where you read the specs. I'd really like to try a Surly 50cm bike to see what that's like. (Heck, I'd like to try a Surly anyway, but I make a point of not trying bikes way out of my price range...)

oldbobcat

Congratulations on finding the right size. After hearing so many rationales for riding bikes that are too large--like, me legs are long and I need to be up high, or, my legs are short, so I need the longer top tube--it's refreshing to hear a first-hand story about being sensible for a change.

vanguardx3

How is standover clearance measured anyway?

I'm assuming it's with your cycling shoes and shorts on, and with the front wheel only pulled up?

Or, do you pull both wheels up simultaneously?

Not that it matters much. I have 1-2" clearance on both road bikes when pulling the front wheel up only. Just curious.

chasm54

Bike sizing is a pretty dark art these days. We all talk about seat tube length - 56cm, 60cm, whatever - but compact, mixte and step-through frames make that a more arbitrary number than it used to be. Top tube length used to be what it said, in the days when top tubes were horizontal. Now that most of them aren't, we talk of "effective" top tube by using a level to figure out where the tube would be if it weren't where it is. And then there's stack and reach, which are probably the most rational way of figuring out incremental increases in frame size but are more difficult to measure accurately and anyway, most people aren't quite sure what they are.

And when you've figured all that out, there's the inconvenient truth that the same rider can be comfortable on markedly different frame sizes, especially when the geometry differs. I'm a shade over 6'3 with a 35" inseam. When I was a kid the rule of thumb for sizing bikes was inseam minus 10 inches, so as a young man I should have ridden a 25" frame. And I did, more or less - my size on a conventional steel-framed road bike with a horizontal top tube was usually 64 cm. When I had a custom frame built in that style a few years ago it turned out a 63 cm, so that was close. But I have a 58 cm SS/FG on which (admittedly with a couple of cm of spacers) I am supremely comfortable, and I've just been fitted to a 61 cm tourer with a 130mm stem which also fits like a glove. Then there's the large Giant TCR I've ridden for years without ever bothering to work out precisely what size it is by these measures. I have, however, out of curiosity, measured the distance between my contact points - bars, saddle, pedals - on each of these bikes and they are identical to within two or three mm. But my centre of gravity is rotated through a slightly different angle on each. The custom bike handles a shade better than the TCR, for example, because although the fit is the same, my weight is fractionally further forward over the front wheel.

Anyway, this far-too-detailed ramble is mainly to make the point that one can't get too dogmatic about sizing. People differ, and even when they don't, different solutions can be appropriate.

OldsCOOL

Very simple to to me, standing over top tube and hands on the bar, just lift up. If there is a great amount of space it's too small...or you have the more modern sloping tube. It really is a personal preference situation.

Road Fan

I want to echo Bill's recommendations of Joe Friel's work. I also have no connection to Joe, except appreciation for what I've learned and in a few cases accomplished!

I'm starting over again right now and Cycling Past 50 is again on my nightstand, with Fast after 50 right under it.

Road Fan

I don't believe standover is a key sizing criterion for a bike, except as a constraint. For me, a bike where my perineum is on the top tube when I stand straddling the bike is just too high. Relative to that contact I'd want at least two cm of clearance, or a frame 2.5 to 3 cm smaller.

You then have to compensate the loss of size when you get your new smaller frame by raising the saddle so more seat post shows, use a seat post that allows more saddle setback, and select bars/stem to get your saddle to grip distance the same as it was for the too-tall bike.

When this is all done the smaller bike should allow safe clearance while standing and still have your contact points all in the correct relationships, relative to the current too-tall bike.

dougmon 

I was able to get a smaller bike with more clearance, so that's a non-issue now. I'm still acquainting myself with the new styles of bike, though (really? 27 speeds? trigger shifters? Why, back in my day, we had 5 speeds and liked it, and we shifted by...huh, I don't remember how we shifted).

As for the Joe Friel book, I did pick it up on Bill's recommendation. While some of the material is not pertinent to my situation (the parts where he talks about racing), I am getting some good stuff from it.

Zurichman2

This is what I know from my last bike fitting on my Lemond road bike. They basically measure me with my pedal down all the way at the 6 pm position. They then measured the bend of my new which what they call the neutral position is 30 degrees. They then spent over a hr. fine tuning that watching me to see if I was rocking on the bike. It help that I bought a new Brooks saddle and so the cost for the fitting was something like $20 a great deal.

NVanHiker

None of my bikes have any appreciable clearance over the top tube, come to think of it. I normally only have one leg on the ground at a stoplight anyway, or I guess I instinctively lean the bike a few degrees when necessary.

Loose Chain

I like about two inches on a level top tube bicycle and a little more does not hurt my feelings. I like more on a cycle cross or MTB.

It is an opinion, but I would say you possibly have been riding frames too large. But fit can be personal and we are not all alike in our body dimensions or preferences.

Loose Chain

Stocking feet, both wheels off the ground.

dougmon 

This is quite an old post but I'll reply anyway, because you bring up a good point. I had been riding bikes too large for me. I've since corrected that. I do think it's the way I'm built; I can't find a bicycle that gives me more than an inch or so of clearance. But I certainly am ok with that.