Bomb Komodo

I agree with Carelton and TT. My Fuji team is a 54, and while I am probably more of a 52, I have the long torso thing going on, and my back does not ache after rides. I like this and do not mind the standover being high,l since I do not dismount in a way that I would rack myself.

cobrabyte

I'm against this logic as it doesn't take into account how the bike handles. TT length is very important. Extra short or long stems are going to durastically change how the bike handles, and I would personally prefer to compramise standover height rather than TT length.

cobrabyte

^****, i really can't spell for ****

TejanoTrackie 

You can't spell, however, you do make perfect sense and I agree that extremely long or short stems position you either too far forward or to the rear of the front wheel axle, which affects handling for sure. Also, proper stem length is a function of frame size, since a larger frame will move the stem backwards and away from the front wheel, such that larger stems are normal for larger frames. A 90mm stem is fairly long on a 49cm frame, whereas it would be short on a 61cm frame.

Sixty Fiver

I have been fitting people to bicycles for many years with a great deal of success and always explain that stand over is only one aspect of fit and that the top tube length and cockpit set up are crucial for a comfortable fit.

I also like to be able to go out with people when they test ride as observation tells me a great deal about what does or does not need to be changed in the way a bike is set up and how a person's individual bio-mechanics affect how they ride.

People who are new to road / track bikes will have a period of adjustment as they adapt to a more aggressive riding position and over time flexibility and strength will change / improve and changes may need to be made to the bicycle set up.

In doing a fitting one should come out with a small range of sizes that make a good fit and the type of bicycle and riding style also dictate how the bike will be set up... my ideal range of ride-ability is 52-55cm for stand over and I can rock a 58cm frame but without some radical changes the top tube / reach will be less then ideal.

My road bike is 55cm square with an 80mm stem and has a French fit with a small saddle to bar drop while my FG road bike is a 52 cm with a 54cm top tube, a 100mm stem, and a much more radical saddle to bar drop (Merckx fit)... it has more than a fist full of seat post which is another old way of gauging the proper frame size. With sloping top tube there is a virtual stand over and a proper fitted bike always has more than a fist full of seat post.

As I am also in the business of building bicycles knowing how to fit someone is crucial to our success as builders and we cater to people of unusual size that are often unable to find an off the peg bike that fits them properly. We also work with persons who have disabilities or physical issues that require that they have some custom work done to accommodate them.

We do some radical work... when a customer might be six foot nine with size 16-18 feet there are a lot of things we do to make their bike fit like a glove and make sure the bike will handle what is usually a larger rider.

Conversely... people who are very short can have a hellish time finding a road bike that will fit them properly as when you drop below a certain frame size you also start looking at custom wheel sizes.

My little sister is just a speck over five feet tall with rather short legs... her racing bike is 45cm and rolls on 650C wheels and my 11 year old daughter has a road bike with a Terry design that uses a 540 front and 700c rear which allows for full road gearing and corrects the front geometry and eliminates the toe overlap you would get if you used a 700c on a traditional road frame of this size with more aggressive head angles and lower trail.

sillygolem

If standover height was so important, no one would be able to ride tall bikes.

hairnet

Maybe manufacturers should start labeling bikes by TT length rather than stand over, considering the wave of compact frames. Kind of like switching from 700c to 622mm

camashtorcal

Was I the only kid 20 years ago that took the older kids 10 speeds around for a loop around the block. And back then the top tube came up to my chin and I managed to hop on and hop off without dismembering myself. Nowadays, I'm 29 years old 5'9 and all legs, I can stand over bikes sized passed 60cm. That would be a hell of a reach if I actually bought a 60cm top tube bike. Why can't more companies size their bikes like Panasonic. 59cm seat tube and 55 cm top tube. I need a Panasonic.

Squirrelli

I'm also 5'9" and can stand over 60cm bike but need mega short top tube bikes.

What's your inseam?

hamish5178

Or a Mash

camashtorcal

I forget exactly but between 33 and 34 inches

Six jours

Decades ago the Renault/Gitane/Guimard formula was more-or-less standard, especially after LeMond publicized it in his book. (For the kids, it's pubic bone height X .67 = frame size C-T, pubic bone height X .883 = seat height. And yes, those numbers are from memory, so should be double checked, as if anyone's paying attention to anything I write anyway.) For my money, those figures still put just about anyone in the ballpark - and ballpark is close enough, despite all the nonsense about high-priced "fitting gurus" bandied about these days. Of course, now that the manufacturers have all decided to save money by offering "compact" frames in small, medium, and large, well, good luck with the formulas.

At any rate, standover height is bull**** and always has been. The CPSC came up with it as a safety feature, and of course the CPSC is every bit as useful as any other government program. The fixie kids may have seized upon it because they are utterly clueless about anything having to do with bicycles. (I suppose that may also explain why they are so concerned about landing on their balls. Until I tried to sell an old track bike on Ebay a few years ago and was accosted by dozens of barely literate tweens all demanding to know the standover height, it had never occurred to me that someone might want to jump off a bike and land with both feet on the ground while straddling a top tube.) Now that I'm old grumpy man riding a touring bike with his handlebars way up in the air, I find that even "French fit" is too small. My bikes have less than zero standover height, and if wasn't for the fixie goofballs, I wouldn't even be aware of it.

All of which is a long way of explaining that standover doesn't need to be factored in to bike fit unless you are a jackass. And now I'm going to go fix myself another drink.

carleton

+1

csj0952

So I sent BD an email asking for sizing info on a Kilo TT Pro, should be interesting to see what they say.

I'm 5'6 roughly 30inch inseam (in socks only). I currently ride a Small BMC Streetfire which has the most weird Geo I've ever seen on a bike with a 530 tt and 460 s
https://www.bmc-racing.com/us-en/bike.../standard.html

I was re-fit again on this bike because I was getting hand numbness. He put on a 90 deg stem with a 20 degree rise.

Saddle height from BB 698mm 27.5inches
Saddle Nose to headtube 490mm 19.5inches

Kilo TT measurements:
47cm (c-c) is 50cm(c-t) with TT of 513mm and standover of 29 inches
50cm (c-c) is 53cm(c-t) with TT of 523mm and standover of 30.4 inches

I feel like the standover might be a touch uncomfortable off the bike but the 523mm is closer to my 540 now....however, I'm not sure with the 20 degree rise of the stem how that cuts down the distance...I like to ride in the drops a lot though....I have good flexibility and a good back.

uketastic

Huh, I work at a local shop and honestly when sizing a bike for someone I always have them hop on the pedals and try out the different hand positions, with me holding them up, before even test riding the bike. Since there is a range of sizes one could ride based purely on stand over and seat tube length I like to make sure and tell them that the top tube is also a key factor in sizing a bike since there are other important aspects like the reach of a bicycle and so on. Also, since different bicycles have different geometries it is also easy to explain how one size in one style of bicycle might not fit them in that same "size" of a different style bike.

No wonder people come in complaining about Performance with things like this. Some guy brought a bike in he bought from them with knee problems a few days into riding the bike simply because no one there would help him really fit the bike to him, even with a simple thing like saddle height adjustment. Ultimately it wasn't the wrong size bike for him it just needed a few minor adjustments.

KD5NRH

Panasonic never got anything else right, so everybody just assumes they screwed that up too.

As for sizing, bikes are like suits; if they're listed as "S, M, L, XL, XXL" you can be pretty sure they're crap.

hamfoh

Not sure I would chalk this as the reason why. Before I even heard of BD I had people do this test with me. There's a thread in the road forums right now where I guy says he left the shop because a guy suggested a bike where the standover was a nutcruncher. The first thing people do 90% of time when they buy a used bike from me via craigslist is to do the standover test for themselves (everything but MTB) and I'm guessing most of them have never heard of bikesdirect. I think it's just one of several ways LBS' have started to 'test' bikes on people before having them test ride it and it's now just become standard practice basically everywhere, so those who are buying used bikes hear from their friends 'be sure to check the standover!' or something along those lines. I really don't think we can pin this one on bikesdirect. It being standard practice in most road bike shops is what I would attribute it to, imo. I guess you could say all the people doing this in shops got it from BD, but that just seems unlikely

roadandmountain

Great thread, lots of great info and examples.

I'm 5'8," 30" inseam. I got a "fitkit" measuring quite some time ago, and they told me that a 66" TT + stem length was "ideal," and that a 27/29" SO was "ideal" for a mtn and road bike respectively.

Ever since then, I've used this as my standard. I have to say, I had a 53.5 cm + 11.5 cm stem combo on my road bike and it was clearly not long enough, so I think fitkit numbers are probably correct.

Thing is, most bikes with under 30" standover have a top tube of 53 or 54 cm, leaving me to with the option of zero standover and correct top tube or short top tube with an inch of standover.

Should I just go with zero standover at this point? Every time I go into a shop, I ask them for a size 50 or 52, and they're always trying to steer me to a 54, which probably has the correct top tube size.

Krull06

The reason that places like REI and Performance put so much emphasis on stand over height is because it is the easiest and quickest aspect of a fit to be identified by both the customer and salesperson. If their salespeople were properly trained to fit all aspects of a bike they would just confuse the average customer, waste time, and not sell as many bikes. I run into this all the time at the shop where I work. That's why I, just like others have posted, start off by having the customer stand over a bike in the style that they desire in order to assess a fit range. Then I eyeball the individual's dimensions and pick a frame from that range, place the bike in a trainer, and have them mount the thing. After I adjust the seat to the correct height I can assess things like top tube length, overall reach, and posture. But I work at a small local shop. If the guys at those larger chain stores took that time with everyone of their customers they would need many more salespeople on the floor. Also they would have a much harder time selling separate fitting sessions.

Six jours

It's alive! Alive!

zazenzach

zombie thread!

just to add for posterity- i think the whole fit issue is unneccesarily complicated and most of it is bull. well respected folks like Rivendell will advocate focusing on seat tube length (so the frame is not too small causing super low bars). but then Sheldon Brown says the exact opposite in that only top tube length really matters. others advocate these intricate mathmatical formulas.

for me, i choose a frame based on how much seatpost is showing when im fit to it. my endurance/sport bikes will have typically a fistful of seatpost, and my more racier stuff will have 2 fists full. (i only ride traditional horizontal top tubes btw). then i adjust my reach if needed via stem.

hairnet