robatsu

Same goes for my 1972 Fuji Finest, 21/23/25 were the offerings, and being an average male height, or what used to be average height a couple of decades ago, 5'9", that means the 23 was probably my size by the standards of the day. And it works for me.

bbattle

I'm also in the "long legs, short torso" category. 5'8"(173cm) with a 31.5" inseam(80cm). Had to shorten the stem on my first road bike, I've been getting smaller frames ever since.

graywolf

I was refering to a bit farther back than the 1980's. The old pre-WWII english roadsters mostly only came in 24 inch and larger. In the 50's most of us kids got a bike at least two inches too big on the principal that we would grow into it. Pre-1965 or so was what I was thinking of.

cs1

You need to seriously consider a 650B conversion. You can count on the standover height dropping not quite an inch. That plus the extra clearance for fenders. I would start with 700C bike not a 27". When you do a 650B you'll need long reach brakes in 99% of the cases. If you start with a 27" then you'll never get brakes long enough to fit. Good luck

cs1

At 6'4" there aren't many bikes too big for you. When your daughters have their cycling shoes on those bikes will probably fit them nicely. BTW, how did a guy that tall get kids that small?

jan nikolajsen 

I'd rather compromise my nuts than resorting to the visually uninspiring sloping toptube!

OT: I seem to remember reading about the relationship between fore and aft saddle position and pedal stroke efficiency. When I started wrenching 30 years ago, my bike mechanic book said something like this for ideal saddle adjustment: Hang a plumb-bob over the tip of the saddle and it should hover 2-3 cm aft of crank center. Or maybe it was in front... Any pointers?

Saintly Loser

My method of frame fitting is to find the biggest frame I can stand over (with no or minimal clearance) and work with that, using a shorter or longer stem as needed. It's always worked for me, but comfort is my goal, not maximum efficiency. I'm no racer.

You're in Brookline? There must be a Brooks Brothers in Boston. I have the same problem, except I'm taller (6'2"). They have a 15" neck, 35" sleeve size that fits me just fine. I haven't been able to find that size anywhere else. Comes in button-down and point collar versions. Blue, white, and a few other colors (sometimes), too.

ultraman6970

I'm not that sure if somebody mentioned this... The reason because stand over does not work that well (it doesnt work, period) as an effective measurement of a frame size is because different bikes have different BB heights. As higher the bb shell from the ground the higher the Top Tube also.

Extreme example only to picture what i'm talking about... you can have two different bikes and two different sizes... lets say one is a 56 and the other is a 49... if the bb of the 49cms one is 45 cms probably the Top tube will be way higher than the 56 cms one that has the usual 26 cms bb height. (I'm just comming up with stupid numbers ok********************????).. so now we have the hipster or the guy who wants to use the stand over size because all his life did it like that... he tries the 56 cms and it is a little bit small then he tries the 49 and he thinks it is the right one, but now he needs a 20cms lenght stem to be able to fit the frame and a seat tube 3x longer than usual and all because somebody told him that the stand over works a rule of gold.

Track bikes have a bb that is 1 or 2 cms higher than road bikes so the TT is 1 - 2 cms higher also. If you use the stand over rule to buy a track frame (HIPSTERS) you end up with a smaller frame than what is really needed. Usually the cheappo line of any brand has a super high BB shell for some reason I can't understand YET. Pretty deformed frames anyways.

Hope this open peoples eyes. Finest frames lines of frames on any brand have sort the the same bb height. The cheappo junk varies too much to even dare to use stand over. Now... what it can happens if the bike you have right now is super old and the bb is like 2 cms lower than the one you have been looking for in the LBS? (attention, they might use stand over also)... yes you'll end up with frame 2 cms smaller and using a longer stem that means that probably you won't feel right in the bike ever no matter what you do to fit it right, yes it is too small.

cya all...

Ben Haynes

I prefer larger frames for my riding style and a straiter leg while riding. By normal standards having a 25 inch racing frame(20 yrs old) and 24 inch frame mountain bike Trek 4500 (1 year old, previous mountain bike 23 inch frame) at 5 foot 9 inches tall inside leg 33 inches they would be considered too tall. Bikes are for riding not standing over. Never had any accidents in all the years I have been riding and find them very comfortable to ride.Standover height is approximately 35 inches. I have ridden smaller frame bikes and find them too cramped.

RobbieTunes

+1 most folks.

Road Fan

I think it's just a matter of comfort. Standover height is not fundamental to cycling, unlike tt length and saddle height. Wearing good shorts can protect the "boys" by holding them up and out of the way. If some remaining contact is acceptable, I think the main safety issue is pressure on your pelvic bones. Some people alleviate that by tilting the bike, and I am not sure if I can do that - it's another habit I have not formed.

I'm looking for a frame where teh standover is just about equal to my inseam, so I can get the taller head tube, and raise the handlebars while still using a normal-looking stem. This way with shorts and my usual biking shoes I'll have maybe 2 cm clearance to the bones, and I don't think I'm worried about the "boys."

Road Fan

Road Fan

Well, not that recently, bike shops were telling me to have clearance when I straddled back in 1966. For it to be quantified with specific degrees of clearance, that is new.

Zaphod Beeblebrox 

+1 Sloping Top tube makes me cringe. Something about the look that just really turns me off.

Road Fan

Agree here, with the added caveat of bottom bracket height. If you are worried about standover, you aren't really getting it when you talk about size. A lower bottom bracket lowers the top tube relative to the ground. So does a laid-back seat tube. Both contribute to deternining the standover height.

mickey85

I'm 5'11" with a "junk height" of about 33". That said, I ride a 58 cm Raleigh, ww.5" (57 cm) Univega and a 61 cm Peugeot. All of them "fit" me (i.e. they're comfy, and I could ride them forever) as I have them set up (the Uni has NR bars - drops might be a bit too short), yet the lads are comfortably touching, if that makes sense, on the Raleigh and Unis, the Peugeot is rather uncomfortable to stand over, but I can *kinda* do it flat footed...

Anyway, all that is to say that it doesn't really seem to matter as long as you don't go crazy on it. For instance, even though I could probably ride 63cm, I don't know if I would, and if I go much smaller, I find I'm crouching too much.

robatsu

I think a lot of this standover stuff was originally initiated by the CPSC, when they started saying people had to have one inch of clearance for a properly fitted/safe bike. Once this happened, bike companies more or less had to toe the line, otherwise putting themselves at risk of being sued for selling "unsafe" products. Rivendell is one of the makers that clearly chafes at this and while they make a big deal about PBH and what their very liberal definition of one inch of clearance is, you can practically hear them muttering under their breath that standover doesn't matter and you should buy a bike like they used to be sized in the 70's.

Speaking of that, when I look back at old fuji catalogs, you see that a lot of the models were offered in 21", 23", and 25", e.g, small, medium, and large. So a 58 cm or so was considered medium then, suitable for a guy of average height like me at 5'9". And that is around the size I ride, which doesn't allow me anything approaching a flat-footed standover. But it is no big deal, at stops, the bike is tilted, usually w/one foot in the pedal.

I went through the deal in the 90's for a little while riding 21" or so bikes and I'm real glad to have come back to larger ones and ignored the CPSC.

bikingshearer 

Touching the boys "just a little" is okay. Having the boys crammed into your pubic bone is not so okay. If you can straddle the bike and lift it a couple of inches before it is pressed hard against your pubic bone, the odds of you doing anything awful to your naughty bits coming off the saddle is pretty minute.

I say, go get that 50cm frame. The 650c suggestion is also a good one.

Road Fan

I would agree that if the plumb line is not behind the BB, you're likely to be too far forward, but let's look at what's really happening. You are pedaling the bike, and your butt takes on some positoin on the saddle. After being fully warmed up, that position essentially represents the leg/pedal geometry that is natural for you, KOPS or no KOPS. For rear end comfort, the saddle needs to be placed so that it best supports you on your sitbones when pedaling in that location. I see nothing in this that makes the good spot corresponds to a saddle nose that is 2-3 cm behind the BB.

Road Fan

Rustyoldbikes

I prefer tall "traditional" frames, so on my favorite bikes, the top tube will brush against my jeans if I stand flat footed over the bike. Not enough pressure to be uncomfortable, but enough to be noticed. But, when riding these bikes, they fit me perfectly, and their longer headtubes make it easy to get the bars up where I like them (with the highest part of the bars level with the top of the saddle).
.
I've read the "theory" that in an accident, having a smaller frame with a couple of inches of "stand over" space is safer than a tall frame with zero standover space. But, in "real life", any accident that sends a rider flying off the saddle onto the top tube is gonna hurt, whether the drop from the saddle to the top tube is five inches or whether it is ten inches.

etherhuffer 

My spouse has relatively short legs, and can only really get on a cross bike, so she has the opposite problem. Tall frames with relaxed geometry are the way to go.

Kommisar89

You guys are cracking me up, now I can't get that song out of my head...'some are held for charity and some for fancy dress, but when they're held for pleasure they're the ones that I like best'. Anyway, I really don't understand that whole sloping top tube, bear riding a bicycle look so common today. With average BB height (whatever that might be) 22 inches is probably perfect for me with a 30-in inseam (not the fancy PBH measurement Rivendell talks about - that would probably be an inch or two more) but as someone pointed out many bikes came in 21, 23, and 25 inch size. I could ride a 25 with the saddle jammed all the way down but it would look kind of silly and I could ride a 21 with a really long seat post - probably longer than what was available in the C&V period. But 22-23 is perfect and leaves about 4-5 inches of seatpost showing. I can stand over a 22 inch with just a bit of clearance or a 23 inch just touches in bike shoes. My speed modulators probably don't generate enough force to cause me to slide off the saddle anyway and if I'm hitting something or otherwise in a position to be flying off the saddle and landing on the top tube I seriously doubt that extra inch is going to help. IIRC, the only time I had any such incident, it was a crushed helmet, broken collar bone, and the dualie rear wheels of that damned tow truck coming at me that I was concerned about. The boys did just fine.

roseskunk

if the frame is too big, just ride it when it's cold. the "boys" will be riding higher...

JohnnyBee

Yep, gotta second that one. Think about it ... where does one spend
the most time on the bike - riding it, or straddling it ?

There is a margin of allowance when it comes to stand-over, but
very little once in the saddle and pedaling. You have to be comfortable.
The saddle height, TT length, and stem length are very important.


If you choose to ride a slightly taller frame, just be careful to unload
properly so you won't be singing Soprano :



JohnnyBee.

dit

My old custom made sports touring frame is 52cm but it has a 55cm tt. I recently built up a 56 cm frame with a 56 cm tt. I have found the reach on the new bike to be too long but it has a 110mm stem. I am changing the stem to a 70 cm (compliments of Robbietunes)while the old bike has a 75mm stem and the reach will be almost identical to my old bike and I think all will be well with the world. Now if I can just talk wifie into a brooks saddle to match the old bike.......