andr0id

I'm 6'1" and ride a 59cm C-C when I get a custom frame. I've ridden 23" and 58cm.
I once ordered a super nice 24" (60cm) Raleigh Pro in mink blue and it just a bit too big.
I never got used to it and sold it off.

Under 6' on a 60cm is going to be wrong for 99% of the population of planet earth, but maybe OP is just that special.

Champlaincycler

BEn[/QUOTE] I'm 5'11 1/2" (down from 6' 1/2" due to age) and very long limbed, basically a monkey.

Too funny as that is me exactly. I've ridden a 56 Madone for the last 9 years. I had to add a riser due to neck issues. This brought my bars a little too close, and my seat was way high. I've always felt a bit squished. After a summer of trying out all of the new endurance bikes, I pulled the trigger yesterday on a Robaiux 58 cm. Endurance geometry is a bit different and I'm hoping I'll be happy with it. BTW, ordering the 2016 model I wanted saved $400 plus over the same 2015, go figure.

MagicHour

I'm an inch taller than you and I can't think of a mfr sizing range where I would need to go up to a 58, let alone a 60! Generally, I would take, whatever size has a 56-57cm(max) top tube, which is usually called a 56, M/L, Lg etc.

gaucho777 

too

adverb \ˈtό\
: in addition
: more than what is wanted, needed, acceptable, possible, etc.
: to a high degree or extent : very or extremely

Full Definition of TOO
1: besides, also <sell the house and furniture too>

2 a: to an excessive degree:excessively <too large a house for us>
b: to such a degree as to be regrettable <this time he has gone too far>
c: very <didn't seem too interested>

gsa103

This. You want to size a bike based on top-tube length and head-tube height (look up "stack and reach"). Then run whatever length seat post you need. It sounds like you have long legs, which means a comparatively short torso. You might actually find a size smaller (54) provides a better fit. It would move the bars in allowing your arms to reach down more than forward, and moving your center of gravity back on the saddle. Just something to think about. You might even want to consider something like a Retul fitting and then buying the bike to match the fit.

Wanderer

Don't feed the troll!

smarkinson

If you are certain you want to reduce the number of spacers then try looking for a frame with a longer head tube (someone mentioned this earlier). Trek bikes have H2 and H1 geometry frames. The H2 frames provide a longer head tube which might help you get the look you want. Also with Specialized bikes, The Roubaix frames have a head tube that is 2cm longer than their Allez frames (at least in the 54 and 56cm sizes).

Lots of manufacturers make "endurance" bikes which have a more upright riding position (ie a longer head tube) than you find on a racing frame and I think these may be worth exploring in your case. I'd take a tape measure to your existing head tube/spacer/stem setup and then start looking up the geometry of some frames to find one that you gets you close to those numbers.

bananabacon

Well the frames that were 60cm in question have been sold.
The OP who mentioned me going down to a 54cm made complete sense.
It was also odd to hear that the 58cm may be a sweet spot.
What I gathered was 60cm is enough to get veterans in a tizzy to troll
Got from that is as a new comer people will stand by veterans.

What I care about
The information made my head spin and want to read a bike book and watch youtube guides.
uhh... isn't that what counts when a newb asks for help? to get them to think? maybe not try to bruise an ego?
idk what ever.

StanSeven

There seems to be a lot of this going on lately.

mawashi

Exactly, if bannaboy wants a nutcracker and goes bonkers when anyone mentions otherwise, I say why bother...

hokie cycler

Me too and I had a pro fit that confirmed it.

hokie cycler

No, what you should have learned from the responses is that a 60 cm frame is too large for someone of your height. I am 6'-4' and ride a 60 cm Trek and a 59 cm Lemond.

You also need to work on your grammar as your posts are borderline incomprehensible. If this is too negative for you then I apologize.

68venable

I am 6'2" and my Cannondale is a 63cm.

puddinlegs

Banana-man... For fun, plug your measurements into the competitive cyclist fit calculator:

Bike Fit Calculator | Find Your Bike Size | Competitive Cyclist

its not definitive, but should give you a better idea of why it's highly unlikely that you should be riding a 60cm frame.

bananabacon

Figured that 60cm was to big for me from the first post. Didn't like the condicending delivery as it seems routine for me...

Also there wasn't enough explanation as to why 60cm was to big for me other then "dude are you stupid! I'm way smarter then you"

The grammar is the fault of a bad cell phone. Really bad cell phone. I feel that id be compensating when I say that most if not all my English teachers passed me with A's for being an amazing writer. But the grammar part is consistent unfortunately.

If you want to make a 20 question terminology test for me to speak in universal bike language go ahead ;-)

Oh and yes. I sometimes would enjoy explanations as to why something's are bad choices. Even if the answer is way over my head. Which I believe only 31% of the posters could do.

znomit

Ahhh, the "I knew that was a dumb question when I asked it" backdown.
Well, you had us all fooled.

sced

People today ride smaller frames for their dimensions than they used to. I think it's mostly a fashion thing, but they say the smaller frame is relatively stiffer, which in some instances is true, but one could argue - so what? Back in the day there was a thing called a "French fit" - look it up here on BF - that was the choice for many that toured and/or rode long distances. I'm 6 ft even and I buy ~60cm c-to-c BB to top tube frames, but they can vary a lot in terms of other dimensions and I just customize the stems, posts, and set-ups to be comfortable. If you are happy with what you have, why change anything?

StanSeven

The real issue is do you like the way a huge bike handles and feels? if anything most people go with a smaller size when they are torn that way. Smaller feels more responsive and quicker, even when it's not.

Stucky

Dear goodness! I'm 5'10" and ride a 54! (And I've encountered at least one 54 which had a long top tube, which made even it too big for me!)

cale

I doubt it. Condescending delivery? Not mine. You're all about generalizations.

mawashi

OP is all about I want I want it now, nobody owes him an "explanation"...
If he wants things his way, why bother I say.

69chevy

https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycli...e-you-buy.html

I took a bit of time and wrote a pretty lengthy post on a simple method of choosing the proper bike size.

It also explains how to fit it once you have it.

Phil_gretz

I hope that you view this as a positive response.

It is never about inseam when these particular type of discussions take place. The extension of the seat post between these two or three sizes can always accommodate you.

It is about the effective top tube length (depending on the frame type and geometry) plus the stem reach. The horizontal top tube c-to-c length plus the stem reach in the horizontal plane. Those are the measurements that govern whether the frame that you are considering will be a better fit, or not.

To a lesser degree, the frame type, such as endurance, will affect the head tube height and the handlebar height. The *stacks* to which you referred were 1 cm spacers on the steerer tube?

I'm 6' 1" with a longer torso. I require a top tube plus reach of about 680 mm +/- for comfort. + for a higher handlebar set (shorter drop), and - for a lower handlebar (greater drop). We're talking 58 cm frame with 110mm stem. plus or minus.

Should you be two centimeters shorter than me on the horizontal? Maybe, maybe a bit more?

How flexible are you?

goenrdoug

for reference, I'm 5'10.75" and ride a 58cm Trek from 13 yrs ago. It may be a touch large for me, but I find it very comfortable at this point. I am, however, looking at 56's in Cannondale.

Much like different clothing lines, different bike manufacturers tend to 'run a little large' or 'run a little small' in various ways.

At the end of the day, however, we're talking about centimeters here. Being on a bike one size too big or one size too small is not going to kill you. You can make up the differences in adjustments like shorter/longer stems, handlebars with less of a drop, etc.

Ideally, you'd have your perfect sized bike, though, which is probably a 54 or a 56 or a 58, depending on the geometry of the bike and your body. If you want the perfectly sized bike for you, you're going to have to work with someone in person who can help you assess it. Otherwise, do what I did and buy one that seems pretty close and work with it for a couple of years. Along the way I have figured out that I need a very slightly smaller frame on my next bike. In the mean time, I'm having fun riding this one.

To answer your original question, yes, the 60 is almost certainly too big for you -- unless your body proportions are pretty unusual.

RoderWrench

To my eye, the old handful of seat post minimum rule, still applies and gets you ballpark. If its a modern frame with a sloping top tube, 1.5 to 2 handfuls minimum is probably more appropriate. You may want a smaller frame than this depending on top tube length, but never bigger. A slammed seat is a bike that's too big.