AdventureManCO 

Okay, I'm sure this will go in a lot of directions, which is okay.

I just picked up a PX10 mutt. Obligatory photos here

The frame is large - seat tube is 25" (Center-to-Top) and top tube is 23.5" (Center-to-Center).

I am about 5'11" or thereabouts. I get the perfect pedal stroke with about 2" of seatpost showing, so we're okay on the height, but most of my other bikes are right around a 22" top tube length. I'm wondering about using a shorter stem to compensate. I can stand over the bike with both feel flat, but the top tube is pushed firm against, well, you know what.

Its all got me thinking - how big is too big? My plan is to say screw it, and ride the thing anyway, and I have been. I've looked at older pictures of bikes, and frame sizing is all over the place, with some bikes looking really small and cramped, and some where the seat almost looks mounted to the top tube. I remember reading an article that held the view that a larger frame isn't so bad, whereas a smaller frame (for the particular rider) can cause pain and problems. I've also heard that vintage frames might be a lot more flexible in sizing than most realize. I don't really know what to think.

Many of you have a lot more experience than I do. Some of you have probably ridden larger frames than normal for you and had to figure it out.

What say the collective knowledge of the C&V of the bike world?

Thanks!

FrenchFit 

My handle gives it away, but - I've come to the thinking that bigger is better than smaller. I am just a half inch taller than you (which is a half inch shorter than I used to be), and one of my bikes as a 23.5" TT C-C, no problems. my road bikes are all 58cm now, but I'm interested in movjng up to a 60cm frames, I might need a shorter stem but I find I'm moving the seat back on all of bikes currently,

The height of the top tube is meaningless as I see it, I won't be sitting on it.

mstateglfr 

Of course its too large for you.
but if you like it and are determined to amke it work, those two things often outweigh simple reality.

Lascauxcaveman 

seedsbelize 

I also believe bigger is better. I was a 58 cm man all my life, and then a 92 Paramount frame set came along in 61/62. I put a 60 mm stem on it, and moved the seat all the way forward, and it's my favorite ride. I have a 24" Trek 930 frame set incoming as we speak. I can barely stand over the Paramount. The limiting factor for me is top tube length and anything over 59 seems to be too big. I'm 182 cm tall.

Ghrumpy

Give it a shot.

As a point of reference, for many years after Campagnolo introduced their seatpost, what we consider the standard 180mm size now was their "Lungo" or long size. The "Normale" was 130mm.

AdventureManCO 

Haha, yep.

This is about to be my new reality -

Ghrumpy

That 26-spoke rear wheel was way ahead of its time.

merziac

Inseam is key imho, I am just 6ft but have a 37in inseam so I like em big, 60cm + minimum with plenty of seatpost showing even on the 62 and 64's that I have.

I think standover is a good indicator but I have never been concerned since I have never had a toptube that was close to tall enough let alone too tall.

bikingshearer 

You can stand over it, you like the ride and it sounds like you are fairly comfortable on it. Those metrics are more important than numbers.

beicster 

You brought this up in a timely way for me. Just yesterday I finally got a 25.5" 1979 Raleigh Super Course that my wife picked up for me last year up and running in a way that I like. I first put it together with mustache bars and just never could get comfortable on it. Next I tried the original drops it came with. Way too narrow for me. I put 46 cm drops on it yesterday and it fit like a glove. I am 6'2" and have been riding 60 cm 80's Trek road bikes for years. I did what I needed to do to get the bars where I need them but something about that big Raleigh just works. I say, go for it. If you like it, stick with it.

busdriver1959

wrk101

I have a long torso, long arms and very short legs. Several of my bikes have zero to negative standover in order to get enough TT length. Its one reason I like MTB drop bar conversions so much.

As mentioned above, try a short stem and handlebars that you are comfortable with and ride it. I bet it will work just fine!

easyupbug 

Over the 8 years I have been retired my 7 to 8 daily riders have gone from 55 - 56cm to 57 -59cm with little change in stems. Comfort has gone up along with my milage, as have "that frames too large" comments from my local frame builder.

thumpism 

Tall frames are only a problem when you begin to shrink out of fitting them. Live long enough and this will probably happen to you.

AdventureManCO 

Thanks for the thoughts everyone.

Beicster brings up an interesting point.

Something I'm still trying to wrap my head around is this 'I put a longer stem on it and now its more comfortable'. It's weird. I always thought that the closer the handlebars were, the more comfortable the bike would be, but there is no consistently positive correlation between comfort going up and the handlebars moving closer. If anything, I've started to read multiple comments about how people have some pain (back or neck) and they throw a longer stem on, and all of the sudden, things get more comfortable.

I'm trying to figure out why...? If the stem moves the handlebars farther away, then typically the torso is spread out farther and flatter, and in turn, you have to tilt your neck up further to see up ahead, which in my mind would cause more pain. Can riders who relate to this share their experience? What is uncomfortable about having a closer stem/handlebars? Is there a strange 'middle' position that is not quite upright and not quite 'road bike' position that is less comfortable?

I'm trying to figure out proper stem length to compensate for the longer top tube, but short of buying 10 different stems of different lengths, I'm not really sure how to go about it.

Also, is lack of pressure on the hands when riding in a more traditional 'road bike' position (on the hoods, etc) more of a handlebar position thing, or more of a core muscle thing? Unless the handlebars are jacked way up or way closer, it seems inevitable that there will be pressure on the hands from so much forward weight. It sounds like the seat tube length is easy to figure out - if there is enough room to adjust the saddle to your preferred/ideal legstroke while pedaling, you are g-t-g. The top tube length seems more of a mystery.

big chainring 

I'm 6' tall with short legs long torso. I could ride a 57cm if my back was a bit more flexible. 58cm is doable but a tad small. 59 and 60cm are my best fit. 61-62cm are a bit big but I like the way they ride. 63cm is too big but was a popular size back in the day and its rideable.

crandress 

I have an odd body shape, so my legs are short and my torso is longer, so for me I think a bigger bike with a longer top would be nice for riding, but I hate getting on a bike I cannot stand over! I ride a 51/52cm bike, but tried a 56cm once that felt really good riding, but getting on was weird because I did not come close to standing over it.

nlerner

Classtime 

SquidPuppet

I'm six foot tall with a 32" pants inseam. My favorite bike is 66cm. Only 37mm of seat post. I have to lean the bike over at stops to prevent "personal issues". I don't care about the numbers, stand over height, or what it looks like, because it just feels right while I'm rolling.

Pompiere

I was going to sell or trade this frame for something more appropriately sized, but it rides so nice, maybe I will put it back together and keep it. I'm only 5'8", but I can just manage to stand over the 34" top tube height.

thumpism 

Is that a 63.5 touring like mine? I got this when I more than thirty years younger and about two inches taller. I must have lost all the height in my torso since I can still straddle it and the seat height is still good.

belacqua

I'm 6'0" with long legs. The bikes that feel best to me are 25" / 63cm with 58cm TT. My 24" / 60cm frames are my "go fast" bikes, if that is the phrase. Any smaller is too small. It took me years to figure this out.

Pompiere

Yes, it's a 63.5. It has a late 1984 serial number, so I think that is why it has the newer graphics. I have only had it a couple years, but I am just reaching that age where things start shrinking. I think the loss of height comes from the spine compressing over time. I don't see how the leg bones could change in length, unless they started to bow.