AS Collie

Hey all,

This is a question that's been bugging me for a while.

Rightly or wrongly, I've always maintained that just slapping a bike with a numbered size, eg 56cm, was dumb. But the guys I ride with all swear by it. They won't even consider going to see a bike that's not "their size".

In the hunt for some classic beauties, I'm always willing to go a little over or under size-wise, as I'm convinced that I can still set the bike up to be comfortable. Am I wrong? What kind of size range do people operate in?

(All of this is being asked because I really wanna convince myself to buy a slightly-too-big C-Record equipped Grandis .)

frenchbikefan

I ride anywhere from a 48 cm to a 54 cm bike. I could probably go smaller too, but I don't think they make bikes that small.

AS Collie

Wow! That much? Great! I've only gone in the 56-60 range, 58 being my ideal (if there is one). Not to put too crude a point on it, but I've always thought that once I can't break my b.... on the top tube, it's good to go.

frenchbikefan

If I had to step off my 54 quickly, my parents would be lucky they have two other sons to give them grand children

AS Collie

haha.

wtgrantham

I stay flexible in the 57-61 range but try to stay in the middle with 59 or 60 being about right.

Whit51 

I ride bikes between 54 and 58 cm. If I'm looking for a keeper, it has to fit me or a family member. I will snap up a bike, regardless of size, if it has parts I want or if I think I can sell it, as long as it is priced right.

Michael Angelo 

58-62cm for me. Anything smaller makes me fell like a circus clown. Also, I always bring a measuring tape just to be sure. You can't go by what's stamped on the Bottom bracket, lots of companies measure center to top of seat tube. Tallest bike I have is an NOS 67cm Super Course, I really need to sell it. I don't ride it and needs a new home.

irvri

47-52, I can't really standover anything larger than that, though I wish I could!

miamijim

54cm top tubes almost exclusively with a +/- .5cm variance depending on ST tube length.

SteveSGP

My main bike is a 68cm and my backup is a 64cm, I might be able to ride a smaller frame if it had a long enough top tube.

bikemanbob

If I'm going to buy a modern bike, I buy the right size. However, when I buy a classic, I buy a bike from 21" to 23". Size is not nearly as important when I'm buying a vintage bike. I prefer a bike that is larger rather than smaller. By changing the stem and seat post, I can create the right room in the cockpit. I tend to prefer longer reach, and I make the necessary adjustment to create the right feel.

AS Collie

68!?! If you ever come to Italy, you'll have to do a lot of stooping!!! The average size here is around 52, so I often see bargains in the 58-60 range. But I've never seen one bigger than 60 on these shores.

Drummerboy1975

It depends on how cold it is out side weather or not I can ride a bike thats a bit taller.

cpsqlrwn

Same for me with the top tube length which means seat tube c-c 53 to maybe 55. Don't like to go lower than 53 on the seat tube because too much seat post gets exposed and seat height to stem height gets funky. I do have a Primato that's a 55 top tube with a 55.5 seat tube and it fits great because I have first generation Chorus with friction shifters and the brake lever hoods are so compact it shortens the reach requirement by almost 2 cm. When Campy went to ergo shifters, the hood lengths really increased which makes a big difference in an ergo bike for me. I can't ride a 55 with ergos. Too stretched out.

rhm

60 seems about right for me, anything 58 to 62 feels fine, but outside that range is still perfectly rideable and still worth checking out. I'm perfectly comfortable on a 55 or 56 for shorter rides, I just don't think I'd want to do a century on a really small one. Now I have a 63 that seems very comfortable as well.

Bottom line, I'd say go check out whatever interests you. If it's too small, use that as a talking point to drive the price down!

Italuminium

I tend to focus more on the horizontal plane because my body is more picky in that direction . I think that bikes (for me) are best judged in overall reach (rough method: tt length+stem size). I tend to shoot for something like 64 cm on most of my (drop bar) bikes, with a cm or so of wiggle room on either side. That works out well. Assuming the world is full of square build bikes and stems go from 8 to 13 cm the puts me on anything from 51 to 57. Standover is not much of an issue, I can clear a size 60 frame. Frame dynamics of course change with size, so for go-fast applications I prefer a smaller frame with more cm's in the stem, and for comfy cruisers I like higher frames.

Kobe 

Ditto this, except I am starting to switch around to a 64cm as more comfortable, but with a long stem.

AS Collie

I've already given him the whole "it's a little too big for me, can we do something on the price" line! Some times the simple ones work best.

AZORCH

My range is 58 to 62; I won't consider anything outside that range any more. A long time ago, I drank the Kool-Aid and believed the bike markings (when they existed), but there are too many other variables. My keepers are all dialed in very precisely to my fit and I keep a list of measurements on my Droid to compare against: seat and top tube c-c, seat post to stem extension/handlebar junction c-c, stand over; I also differentiate between touring and road bikes due to variances in geometry. The point is that I know what will fit me very well vs. what I can acceptably ride. (I also don't buy in to the bike shop ideal fit either: my LBS places me firmly in the 58 category, but I know from experience that I will limber up a few minutes into a ride and that I'm much more comfortable on a 60.) When it comes right down to it, the measuring tape only helps me to cull out frames I definitely can't ride; I still need to get on a bike and "feel" it.

Bianchigirll 

I try not to stray to far. generally a 59 or 60 is perfect but once in a great while I'll go for a 58.

it also depends on the price. when a customer gave me a Fuji Pro Super Record, I tried real hard to make it fit but alas it was just a bit too small. the extra long seatpost and taller stem made it look ungainly so I passed it along. I think it is now in the hands of only the 4th owner in it life.

khatfull

58 is my smallest and reserved for bikes more setup for go-fast fits.
59-61 is ideal.
62 is doable.

And this is in Fuji...who measured center to the very tip top of the seat lug.

I was surprised to see how many folks listed 58-62 as a range.

Bikedued

58 to 61 here, at least in vintage steel bikes. The new bikes marked 58 to 61 are huge, and feel more like 61-64cm. I am not sure where they're getting their measuring tapes, hehe.,,,,BD

Glennfordx4

I can ride 58 to 62 on vintage steel also with 60-61 being about perfect in the seat tube but I have a longer upper half so anything shorter then 60 in a TT will require a longer stem. My Centurion Elite that is a 60 ST & a 58 TT requires me to use a 130 stem to feel comfortable on.

lostarchitect 

I can ride from 53 to 56 or so. My legs are a bit short, so the TT on a 56 is right up there, you know? But the length feels better at that size because my arms are longish. It's always a compromise until one day I have a frame made to fit.