Dylansbob 

Vintage fit being a large frame with little to no seatpost showing, in my mind.

I've recently been on a bike buying spree and found that several of the 60-62cm bike I've been buying fit me (5'11") perfectly once I'm on them since their top tubes are all under 59cm. Even the modern "jumbo" cdale touring I found only has a 59cm tt. It's made me feel like all those 57/58cm frames that I needed a technomic to feel comfortable were all too small.

Wildwood 

if you can stand over the top tube, you can likely make it fit.
and those tall head tubes make riding in the drops a pleasure.
it's called French fit.
but no seat post showing means that standover is questionable.

getting bikes that fit is best but whatever floats your boat is ok, too.
I ride 58-62cm frames. I would rather stretch to 63cm, than shrink to 57.

Lascauxcaveman 

I guess I should have hustled you a bit harder when you were out my way; I'd like to get rid of a few of my 60-62cm bikes. I'm around 5'11" and I prefer the term "French Fit," It sounds just bit classier, somehow. Although with my setups, its a good 3-5" of seat post showing, depending on the frame.

Wildwood 

As photo evidence of liking tall bikes.
Years ago, these went in a group sale I made to a long legged rider. Loved them all even tho' none were top o th line.
I'm 6'1" but an old fart who demands standover clearance, or frame's toooooo big.
Even on the '72 Raleigh in forground at 25" there is a small fistful of post (the TT was 59cm, IIRC).
Trek 600 Series = 531cs, tall headtube in large size, and felt like a low BB to go with 43.5cm CS. Minimal stem height
Centurion ProTour15 = Tange Champ #2 , 59cm frame in a 'great touring package', per Sheldon.
Peugeot PH10LE = Carbolite 103 (lugless, internal brazing), 58/59cm frame.
Bianchi Limited = made in Japan Ishiwata SuperSet, in a larger size with tall headtube. 62 or 63cm frame. Minimal stem height.

When I rebuilt the bike assemblage, went zippy more than cruiser, but kept a couple for stretching out on.



at least a small fistfull of post on large (to me) framed vintage bikes.

Wildwood 

Here's the one I kept from that group. With nice light tubulars and narrow bars (38cm) it carves a turn precisely and without hesitation, if you commit.


Austro Daimler 531 DB, fast touring frameset Works for me!!! Head tube is around 20cm, I think.. Can ride these shallow drops almost all day if there's a need.

Dylansbob 

As it is, I really need to thin the herd by a couple as well.

John E

At 5'8" with a 32" inseam (30" pant length), I prefer a pretty square approx. 55cm x 55cm frame. As others have suggested in the past, I often find top tube length more important than seat tube length in sizing a frame.

I am pretty traditional in my fit:
Saddle height: knees almost straight with heels centered on pedals.
Length: fingertips almost reach top of handlebar with elbow against saddle nose.

John E

I was thinking the same thing, but couldn't pass up a second Sieger, with a serial number within 30 of the other one.

zukahn1 

I like the classic more laid back fit of the 70's French, English and Japanese bikes a lot I have had bikes ranging from 56-61 that I road with this setup. A lot of the thinking behind this was with more laid back geometry and slightly taller frames makers could manufacture 3 or 4 size frames equipped with basically the same components for each covering 95% plus of the potential riders greatly reducing manufacturing costs.

TenGrainBread 

At 5'7 I normally prefer a 51-53cm square frame. I always like a bit more of a compact frame. Although recently I built up a 73 Schwinn Sports Tourer with a 53cm seat tube and 58cm top tube.

I was definitely worried about the TT length but it fits really well. I'm using a 70mm stem with the Rene Herse randonneur bend bars and it's really comfortable on the bends and ramps. The bars are about level with the saddle. It's definitely opened my eyes to longer TT bikes.

ThermionicScott 

I'm a big fan of what we now call "French fit". The saddle isn't slammed all the way down, but it usually works out to a fistful or less. I always come back to @stronglight's elegantly cleaned-up version of Daniel Rebour's drawing of Jean Dejeans' 1948 PBP bike for inspiration:

Daniel Rebour_Rene Herse_1948_ Bike only by Stronglight, on Flickr

An unforgivably grainy picture of my rando bike:


One thing to be aware of, though: when you start riding bigger and bigger frames of the same geometry, your weight distribution tends to move backward. If a frame is prone to shimmy, having less of your weight on the front wheel seems to exacerbate it. The bike above had originally been set up with my knees behind KOPS since I liked the way that felt, but recently I've been scooching the saddle forward toward KOPS to gain more stability. The shimmy was always manageable, but it's a lot better now.

sd5782 

I have an vintage Frejus that is also a bit big for me. The 23" top tube is an inch shorter than the seat tube though. A shorter stem will fix the long reach to the bars. Might as well give it a try so as to sample the Italian riding experience. I guess with vintage one can't always have a custom fit. This thread has kinda hinted that perhaps it wasn't so odd "back in the day".

ryansu

Amen on TT length being the key measure. I'm about 5' 10 ish these days but have short legs for my height 30" inseam but a long torso. I tend to ride 58 cm/23" frames which makes SO snug but doable and I figure I am riding the bike not standing over it 98% of the time anyway right? So my seat posts while not slammed are showing a child's fistful of seat post. I did find the 57 cm/22.5" Trek 520 I did the clunker challenge on pretty comfortable and it should be more so once I update the cockpit.



23" Nishiki Cresta GT

friendofpugs

I've been experimenting with the "French Fit" a bit myself these days. In the past I used to be a "53/54cm" only kind've guy, but as I buy and sell many different sizes of bikes, I now try to ride them if I can at least throw a leg over. I've been pleasantly surprised this season by riding 55 - 57 cm frames, as long as the top tube isn't outrageously long, and even then I can balance it out with a shorter stem. At least for me it's a mental adjustment, looking down at the taller head tube, how far away the front wheel seems, etc. It's also a sensation of riding on "top" of the bike, rather than "in" the bike on my smaller, more normal frames, if that makes any sense. I've found that larger frames can be more comfortable for some reason. Is it more tubing to absorb more road chatter? Larger frames can flex more? Whatever it is, I like it.

chainwhip

"In" instead of "On top of" is exactly the sensations I've had.
Well put.

I happen to be working my way towards smaller frame sizes. My preference is to be "In" the bike more.

Re: "Larger frames and less road chatter"...compare chainstay lengths across several (C&V) frame sizes.

I'll also defer to BF wisdom: a good tire with boosted volume/ wider rim width/lower air pressure may be the faster route to pavement nirvana than frame materials/sizes/geometries.

Jon T

Come on guys. This is C&V. C&V frames are measured in INCHES, NOT CM's.
Jon

canklecat

I seem to prefer frames on the larger end of the scale for my size. I'm 5'11", 33" inseam, 150 lbs., and seem to feel more comfortable on 58cm frames. But due to old and new neck and shoulder injuries, I need to reduce the reach a bit for comfort. I could go as large as 60cm, but would need a shorter stem or swept bars to reduce the reach.

I think my Univega is 58cm, but with fatter tires it sits up pretty high, about a full inch higher than my 58cm Ironman, despite having the same size head tube. I can straddle it, just. But it's comfortable and I like sitting up high in traffic, so it's a great city bike.

Looking at my road bikes, I seem to gravitate toward the French or Eddy fit, with tops of the bars around 3" below saddle height. That's pretty much how my '89 Ironman is set up now. Appears to be a 58cm frame. Swapped out the longish 130mm stem for a 90mm. Much better. Comfortable for longer rides.

I've ridden only one more contemporary bike with the more recent racer fit, a Specialized Tarmac -- smaller frame, shorter reach, much more drop between saddle and bar -- and it wasn't bad. Just different. But not something I'd choose for everyday riding.

I have one bike with more of a Lance fit (or Anquetil fit, for older fans) -- stretched out. An early '90s Trek 5900, apparently 56cm. I'll need more work in physical therapy before deciding whether to keep it as is or switch to a shorter stem. Saddle to bar drop isn't extreme, but between the long (140mm or so) stem and long brifter hoods, it's quite a stretch. It's comfortable for only 20-30 miles before I need a break. And it feels twitchy compared with my Ironman. I like the original Ibis titanium stem but might need either a shorter stem or a spacer to raise it a bit.