wintermute

I need some help here. I'm thinking about buying an old road bike. I won't have any access to the bike beforehand but I've seen extensive photos of it. It has a 25 inch frame (c-t), 73deg. head and seat tubes. I have a pubic bone height of 91 to almost 92 cm depending on the day. The seller's informed me that it has an 89 cm standover height and a 22.5" top tube c-c. I'm 6', lanky with a realtively good range of movement. I've been pouring over the Lemond method, the 109% method, Rivendell method etc. I like my bikes on the bigger side. This can work for me, right? I think just barely...but I WANT this bike.

khatfull

Just as a point of comparison I'm 6'0", I don't know what my 'cycling inseam' is, and my pants inseam is 30" when they fit proper. All but one of my bikes with is my aggressively fit gofast bike are 60-61cm and I literally can't stand over any of them and not have various bits touching the TT. I'm like you, I've found I like the bigger frame.

Don't get caught up in standover height...none us hop off our bikes flat footed to the ground when we stop....we slow down and lean off a pedal usually keeping the other foot on the pedal. Much ado is made about standover height in the LBSes lately. I personally don't get it.

At 63.5cm I'd have to imagine you'll be very close. I'm not a "lanky" 6' and I know I couldn't ride 63.5. I can ride 61cm though so for you 63.5 might JUST make it.

In the end, there's only one way to find out. Go ride it and see what happens. Any seller should be willing to let you see if the bike fits right?

In my pic in my sig below the bike on the right, the Fuji Opus IV is my shortest bike at 58cm.

zandoval 

So are your saying its to big or to small - Its easier to get away with smaller v/s to big a bike - According to the tables I need a 56cm and for a long time I used a 64cm (way to big for me) and have found it to be most comfortable on a 54cm... Of course there is always the final factor...

mazdaspeed

I am also 6' and I have a 25" super course. I can ride it comfortably even though the reach is longer than the rest of my bikes because the handlebars are so high. Standover height isn't really a big deal, you just need to be careful dismounting.

If you want to use the bike for aggressive riding pass on it though.

nlerner

I have found that top tube length is a much more important consideration (fwiw, I'm 5'10" and ride frames from 57-61cm seat tubes). You report a 22.5" c-c top tube, which is fairly short for a 25" frame. If you're lanky, that might be too short for you, even with a very long stem.

Neal

Italuminium

I'm 5'11-ish (and I don't count in stupid yankee units normally, but in good old napoleonic cm's ), and I prefer a short top tubed frame, so with the tendency of manufacturers building "square" (TT and ST the same length) bikes, I normally end up with bikes with generous TT clearance, and extended seat posts.

bobbycorno

Sounds to me like the answer is "yes". Just for comparison, I'm 6'3", my pbh/cycling inseam is 36.5" (92.7cm), and I prefer a frame in the 64-66cm (25.25-26") range (c-t), with a top tube of 59-62cm (23.25-24.5"). Sounds like your legs are longer and your torso shorter (proportionally) than mine, so ths bike would be a good fit, assuming the "old school/fist-of-seatpost" philosophy.

So, go for it. And send us pics!

SP
Bend, OR
...happily pootling along on my 65cm Trek, and wishing my 63cm Eisentraut was bigger.

ps- IME, the LeMond frame-sizing method is OK for racers, but results in a ridiculously small frame for anyone else (like I'd be on a 61cm. Yeah, right!)

Velognome 

FWIW, I'm 6'2" and my pants inseam is a 34". Two of my bikes have 22 1/2 TT; one has a seat tube of 24 and the other 25. The differnence is notable, not just in the standover. The shorter frame is more comfortable on longer rides, I feel more in control overall. I love both bikes but there is a difference.

JohnnyBee

[QUOTE=khatfull;12964163]Just as a point of comparison I'm 6'0", I don't know what my 'cycling inseam' is, and my pants inseam is 30" when they fit proper. All but one of my bikes with is my aggressively fit gofast bike are 60-61cm and I literally can't stand over any of them and not have various bits touching the TT. I'm like you, I've found I like the bigger frame.

Don't get caught up in standover height...none us hop off our bikes flat footed to the ground when we stop....we slow down and lean off a pedal usually keeping the other foot on the pedal. Much ado is made about standover height in the LBSes lately. I personally don't get it.


Excellent advice Khatfull. I give all of the people I fit the same advice. seems these days, that everyone is hung-up
0n stand-over. After I size them up, I ask them where they spend most of the time .... standing over, OR riding ?
This usually ends the discussion.

OBTW, I always rail my saddle back as well for power. Funny thing - I have been
railing my seat back since I was a bike messenger in the sixties. I discovered early on, that it made power. Mind you
that this was looooong before Lemond made this very popular. Also, (generally) larger frames have longer top-tubes.
Stretched-out with a flat back, gives a great aero position.

Johnnybee.

noglider 

Keith, how could you have a 30" inseam in your trousers? That's what I have, and I consider myself short-legged for a man of five-foot-nine-and-a-half.

oldbobcat

Man, you are lanky, definitely in Axel Merckx territory. But he's a couple inches taller.

For a 25" frame, a 22.5" top tube is very short by today's standards. These days it would be more at home on a 23-24" (58-61cm) frame.

Depending on the your upper body posture, the handlebar bend, and your preferred handlebar position, this bike could work for you, most likely with a shortish (9-11cm stem). A smaller frame, in the 61-62 cm range, would give you a bit more standover clearance but it might be difficult finding one with a sufficiently short top tube. There would also be more drop from the saddle to the top of the handlebar.

Lenton58 

I am not tall — five nine and half (like noglider). So this is just a comment about fit and frames in general. I cannot answer to the challenges that are commensurate with very tall people. But here goes anyway:

My conclusion about frames and fit is that you will not know until you ride it. At very least you need to have a comprehensive understanding that is well and away from the idea of stand-over height as an outstandingly significant factor. And, all the dimensions can make sense on paper, but then ....

Here is an example: I best fit a 56 cm C/C (seat tube) frame. I have two of these, and the fit is totally different. On one of them, I have to nearly fall off the machine when I dismount or stop for traffic signals etc. On the other I need only a slight and easy tip, and then I'm at rest or off the machine. On one I need a high rise Nitto Technomic quill stem so that I don't feel that I'm in fight-to-the-death mode on a keirin bike. The other I'm using a very modest Cinelli stem that barely rises out of the steering head. By all good reason I should fit my 56-ST x 54 TT Simplon better than my 56 X 56 Vitus. But, it is the latter that actually is the better fit.

My take on this stuff is that the geometry of the frame is really important. You can do a lot with a mock-up frame to find out what you need. But those that I have been on cannot adjust for all the geometry. Great for choosing stems and dialing in for rough fit, but they only go so far.

I've wanted to replace my 54 cm Trek with a bigger frame. By measurements of inseam and height, I am supposed to fit the frame really quite well. I really squared up the math before I bid on an auction for it. Alas it is not the perfect fit. I have set it up so I can fit on it, but it is simply not the size that suits me best.

So, I have given serious thought about asking a local frame builder to copy the geometry of the Vitus and build me a steel version of the same thing. (His prices are very reasonable). The availability of suitable lugs may limit what I can have custom built, but that is a different topic — and I'm not flush with money. But it may be cheaper in the end to copy build a replica geometry of a classic that fits than to keep building on frames that are never really the ideal fit.

So my two bits is to buy the frame you have yer eyes on and see if it fits. I am thinking that eventually you will begin to "see" the geometry that fits you best. It may not be this bike, or your next bike. But eventually you may get there. In vintage machines, this is a challenging sort of process; we are juggling rarities in view of specific combinations of frame geometry along with respective body proportion.

Just for myself, and again just as an example, I am beginning to think that 56 cm bikes in road racing geometry with long head tubes that look like they are for a 60 cm bike are going to fit me better. It is just a mode of thinking I am in. Still, after diddling around with some vernier calipers, I have become more curious and more satisfied that I am right.

One thing to finish: when I was in my teens and 20's — even 30's ... anything I climbed aboard was a fit as long as I could adjust the seat to whatever height I needed. SIGH!

khatfull

Dunno what to tell you Tom, 32s drag for me.

newenglandbike

I'd say get it! With your measurements it will fit you perfectly.

I'm 6'0 with an 89cm PBH, and all my bikes are 63-64cm size. My touring rig is actually 65cm C-T, and I once had that on a 6,000 mile tour that I could not have done if it were not comfortable. Also, looks-wise, I think a bike looks best if it has about 5-8 cm of seatpost showing, any more and it just looks like the bike wasn't made for the build of the owner. Obviously this is just an opinion though.

As an example here's my 25" '83 Sequoia. It measures about 64cm C-T:



Geo is like this:
59 TT c-t-c
73.5 STA
73 HTA(?)
blah
blah
blah

Anyway it fits fine.

My seat height is about 78-79cm if I'm wearing a pair of converse chucks which are worn thin.


In a 1939 issue of 'Velo' magazine, Jean Leulliot wrote, regarding bike fit for racers, which I find interesting:

"Handlebars should be roughly at the same height as the saddle. You can lower them by 1 or 2 cm.."

and:

"get the right size. Your seat post should allow at least 5cm above the frame. Avoid bikes that are too upright"

(With your build, I reckon you'll have about 8-9cm of seatpost showing on the bike you're buying).

Race bikes from the 30's/40's era typically used 170mm cranks for taller riders, 165 for short to medium riders, and had 'square' geometries measured C-T-C, except in small and large sizes, in which case the TT was slightly longer or shorter (by 2cm at most), respectively.

Granted, it's not 1939 anymore- but this kind of bike fit/advice works best for me and a many other folks it seems.

Anyway good luck with the deal (go for it!).

Chombi

I'm a smidgen under 5'-9", And I've always ridden 56cm frames, mostly with relaxed 72/72 frame angles (Peugeots) since I started riding in college. Most of my height comes from my longer than typical legs so that my shortish torso ends up being laid out more horizontally over the TT than most, I guess. My body is so used to this position after so many years that I have no problems being on the drops for long periods, except during long climbs. When I got my Vitus Carbone almost two years ago, I made it a point to find one that is smaller than 56cm so that I can experience a different feel on a bike. I thought I was going to be cramped on the 52-53ish Carbone, but I was prleasantly surprised that was not the case. I did end up riding a little bit more upright because of the shorter TT and stem (compared to my Peugeot's) that came with the Carbone, but it's still really comfortable for me. The bonus seems to be more control in tight situations with the handling. The bigger Peugeot still feels faster overall for me, maybe because of the more laid out, lower over the TT, "aero" position my body takes on it, but the Carbone wins on handling and acceleration. I'm really glad that I have two different sized bikes now that I can choose from to use on different rides. The larger one for the longer motoring fast rides, and the smaller one for shorter rides with more curves/less long straights. The only sizing thing in common between the two bikes is the saddle to BB center height measurement. Crank arm legnths are identical at 170mm. In my case, it does not seem like there is just one correct size for me and different sizes within a range can work, depending what type of riding I want to do. I suspect that this could be the same for most other riders. They just have to try it to find out.

Chombi

elguicho 

I was riding bigger frames for a bit but then started using the lemond method which put me in a smaller frame with more seatpost showing. I have noticed a great change in comfort, I'll stick with the Lemond method.

wintermute

Thanks everyone! I think I'm going to go for this thing (overpriced but what it doesn't have in high end stats it makes up for in sheer coolness).

Good to know, since this is also a Raleigh lightweight, and the only aggressive cycling will be racing my wife home on her Trek Elance (mmmmm, triple-butted Ishiwata...Honey, who cares) to get to the beers first.

Velognome 

Ya need a belt maybe?