Experiment with larger frame, any thoughts?
02-05-18, 07:09 AM
#1
Virgo
Thread Starter
Experiment with larger frame, any thoughts?
I'm 5'11 1/4", 34 1/4" cycling inseam. I usually ride a 23" Raleigh Marathon and it's never felt like it fit quite right.
I have this other frame, a late 80's Fuji, it's a 25" but the top tube is only 23 1/2". According to basically everything I've ever read, it should be too big. I put it together yesterday out of boredom and rode it around for 15 minutes or so. It doesn't feel too big, though. Does it look too big? Why would this feel comfortable to me if it is so much larger than frames most people my height/build use?
If anybody requests the back story from the original post, I'll add it in the comments. It was way too wordy for me to even read.
The photo is a screen shot of a video I took, low quality, and an afterthought to the post. I can take a better one if anybody wants. I'm in the drops in this photo.
Thanks,
Joseph
I have this other frame, a late 80's Fuji, it's a 25" but the top tube is only 23 1/2". According to basically everything I've ever read, it should be too big. I put it together yesterday out of boredom and rode it around for 15 minutes or so. It doesn't feel too big, though. Does it look too big? Why would this feel comfortable to me if it is so much larger than frames most people my height/build use?
If anybody requests the back story from the original post, I'll add it in the comments. It was way too wordy for me to even read.
The photo is a screen shot of a video I took, low quality, and an afterthought to the post. I can take a better one if anybody wants. I'm in the drops in this photo.
Thanks,
Joseph
Last edited by Phamilton; 02-05-18 at 09:48 AM. Reason: Original post WAY too wordy.
02-05-18, 11:52 AM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bristol, R. I.
Posts: 4,340
Bikes: Specialized Secteur, old Peugeot
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 663 Post(s)
Liked 496 Times
in
299 Posts
Your position does not look awful but your back could be a bit straighter. If a straighter back happens, then you may want a longer stem. I think the size if fine and anything that may need adjusting is easily possible with no extreme measures. The proof of the pudding, as always, is your comfort.
02-05-18, 12:37 PM
#3
Full Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 256
Bikes: Space Horse Disc, Domane SL5 Disc
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked 29 Times
in
17 Posts
At 5'9 - 5'10, I'm always between most manufacturers' 54 and 56 (ETT) frames. I know the advice is to size down because you can always make a smaller bike bigger, but that didn't work for me. My last bike I sized down to a 54, and after purchasing several stems, multiple adjustments and a year and half of riding, I never was comfortable. I just finished a build on a similar frame, but with a 56 ETT, and everything feels "right" again. For me and this frame, sizing up was the right choice.
I think you look fine on that bike, and obviously it's going to come down to how you feel on the bike and your comfort level. I think once you are able to get in a few longer rides, you'll know for sure if it is right for you.
I think you look fine on that bike, and obviously it's going to come down to how you feel on the bike and your comfort level. I think once you are able to get in a few longer rides, you'll know for sure if it is right for you.
02-05-18, 01:44 PM
#4
Senior Member
I'm about the same height as you with a slightly longer inseam.
I ride a 62cm frame. For me I find it perfect. I have always preferred larger frames as I feel cramped on smaller ones.
At the end of the day if you're comfortable that is all that matters really. If you rode a smaller framed bike you'd no doubt still have the seat and bars set to something like the levels you have them at now. All you're doing is filling the `air space' that a smaller frame would give you with frame, for what would be effectively the same riding position.
In conclusion, bike size/fit looks good. Let your body and your riding tell you what is right, not what the `experts' tell you to conform with today's trend for an aggressive/competitive fit.
I ride a 62cm frame. For me I find it perfect. I have always preferred larger frames as I feel cramped on smaller ones.
At the end of the day if you're comfortable that is all that matters really. If you rode a smaller framed bike you'd no doubt still have the seat and bars set to something like the levels you have them at now. All you're doing is filling the `air space' that a smaller frame would give you with frame, for what would be effectively the same riding position.
In conclusion, bike size/fit looks good. Let your body and your riding tell you what is right, not what the `experts' tell you to conform with today's trend for an aggressive/competitive fit.
02-05-18, 04:12 PM
#5
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,949
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Mentioned: 51 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6177 Post(s)
Liked 4,794 Times
in
3,306 Posts
I'm always put in a 58 cm frame when I go to bike shops. But I think they only initially look at your height. They miss the fact my legs are longer than my younger son that is 6'-3". I'm 5'-11" with about a 35" inseam depending on how you measure. I've always felt better on larger frames. I miss the size of my 26" varsity which equates to a 66cm frame. Ideally I think it was 1 inch to large for me. I probably would have been better on a 25" fram.
And in the 1977 catalog I have for that Varsity, they listed a fit size based on leg length. Here is a copy/paste of that 1977 catalog page 5.
Frame size Leg Length range*
17" 26" to 30"
19" 28" to 31"
20" 29" to 32"
(53.3 cm) 21" 30" to 33"
(55.8 cm) 22" 31" to 34"
(58.4 cm) 23" 32" to 35"
(60.9 cm) 24" 33" to 36"
(63.5 cm) 25" 34" to 37"
(66.0 cm) 26" 35" to 38"
I added the metric conversion to the frame size that was given in inches then. As well I realize that bike geometry has changed somewhat since back then, so todays 60 cm frame might have tubes lengths and angles that make it fit like the sizes of bikes in my youth.
But I believe that bike sizing today is still has the same issue as then. Different people have different arm, leg and body lengths. But the sizing systems were built toward an assumed average. As well the calculators that supposedly take those measures and more into account base their size on a particular geometry or two which might not be what you are looking at in the store.
So trying a size or two in both directions seems rational and prudent to me. And as you seem to be into very old bikes too, then today's frame sizing might not work either.
And in the 1977 catalog I have for that Varsity, they listed a fit size based on leg length. Here is a copy/paste of that 1977 catalog page 5.
Frame size Leg Length range*
17" 26" to 30"
19" 28" to 31"
20" 29" to 32"
(53.3 cm) 21" 30" to 33"
(55.8 cm) 22" 31" to 34"
(58.4 cm) 23" 32" to 35"
(60.9 cm) 24" 33" to 36"
(63.5 cm) 25" 34" to 37"
(66.0 cm) 26" 35" to 38"
I added the metric conversion to the frame size that was given in inches then. As well I realize that bike geometry has changed somewhat since back then, so todays 60 cm frame might have tubes lengths and angles that make it fit like the sizes of bikes in my youth.
But I believe that bike sizing today is still has the same issue as then. Different people have different arm, leg and body lengths. But the sizing systems were built toward an assumed average. As well the calculators that supposedly take those measures and more into account base their size on a particular geometry or two which might not be what you are looking at in the store.
So trying a size or two in both directions seems rational and prudent to me. And as you seem to be into very old bikes too, then today's frame sizing might not work either.
02-06-18, 09:37 AM
#6
Virgo
Thread Starter
Your position does not look awful but your back could be a bit straighter. If a straighter back happens, then you may want a longer stem. I think the size if fine and anything that may need adjusting is easily possible with no extreme measures. The proof of the pudding, as always, is your comfort.
Snow the rest of the week here, so I won't get a chance to really try it until probably next week.
02-06-18, 09:49 AM
#7
Virgo
Thread Starter
At 5'9 - 5'10, I'm always between most manufacturers' 54 and 56 (ETT) frames. I know the advice is to size down because you can always make a smaller bike bigger, but that didn't work for me. My last bike I sized down to a 54, and after purchasing several stems, multiple adjustments and a year and half of riding, I never was comfortable. I just finished a build on a similar frame, but with a 56 ETT, and everything feels "right" again. For me and this frame, sizing up was the right choice.
I think you look fine on that bike, and obviously it's going to come down to how you feel on the bike and your comfort level. I think once you are able to get in a few longer rides, you'll know for sure if it is right for you.
I think you look fine on that bike, and obviously it's going to come down to how you feel on the bike and your comfort level. I think once you are able to get in a few longer rides, you'll know for sure if it is right for you.
I'm about the same height as you with a slightly longer inseam.
I ride a 62cm frame. For me I find it perfect. I have always preferred larger frames as I feel cramped on smaller ones.
At the end of the day if you're comfortable that is all that matters really. If you rode a smaller framed bike you'd no doubt still have the seat and bars set to something like the levels you have them at now. All you're doing is filling the `air space' that a smaller frame would give you with frame, for what would be effectively the same riding position.
In conclusion, bike size/fit looks good. Let your body and your riding tell you what is right, not what the `experts' tell you to conform with today's trend for an aggressive/competitive fit.
I ride a 62cm frame. For me I find it perfect. I have always preferred larger frames as I feel cramped on smaller ones.
At the end of the day if you're comfortable that is all that matters really. If you rode a smaller framed bike you'd no doubt still have the seat and bars set to something like the levels you have them at now. All you're doing is filling the `air space' that a smaller frame would give you with frame, for what would be effectively the same riding position.
In conclusion, bike size/fit looks good. Let your body and your riding tell you what is right, not what the `experts' tell you to conform with today's trend for an aggressive/competitive fit.
I'm always put in a 58 cm frame when I go to bike shops. But I think they only initially look at your height. They miss the fact my legs are longer than my younger son that is 6'-3". I'm 5'-11" with about a 35" inseam depending on how you measure. I've always felt better on larger frames. I miss the size of my 26" varsity which equates to a 66cm frame. Ideally I think it was 1 inch to large for me. I probably would have been better on a 25" fram.
And in the 1977 catalog I have for that Varsity, they listed a fit size based on leg length. Here is a copy/paste of that 1977 catalog page 5.
Frame size Leg Length range*
17" 26" to 30"
19" 28" to 31"
20" 29" to 32"
(53.3 cm) 21" 30" to 33"
(55.8 cm) 22" 31" to 34"
(58.4 cm) 23" 32" to 35"
(60.9 cm) 24" 33" to 36"
(63.5 cm) 25" 34" to 37"
(66.0 cm) 26" 35" to 38"
I added the metric conversion to the frame size that was given in inches then. As well I realize that bike geometry has changed somewhat since back then, so todays 60 cm frame might have tubes lengths and angles that make it fit like the sizes of bikes in my youth.
But I believe that bike sizing today is still has the same issue as then. Different people have different arm, leg and body lengths. But the sizing systems were built toward an assumed average. As well the calculators that supposedly take those measures and more into account base their size on a particular geometry or two which might not be what you are looking at in the store.
So trying a size or two in both directions seems rational and prudent to me. And as you seem to be into very old bikes too, then today's frame sizing might not work either.
And in the 1977 catalog I have for that Varsity, they listed a fit size based on leg length. Here is a copy/paste of that 1977 catalog page 5.
Frame size Leg Length range*
17" 26" to 30"
19" 28" to 31"
20" 29" to 32"
(53.3 cm) 21" 30" to 33"
(55.8 cm) 22" 31" to 34"
(58.4 cm) 23" 32" to 35"
(60.9 cm) 24" 33" to 36"
(63.5 cm) 25" 34" to 37"
(66.0 cm) 26" 35" to 38"
I added the metric conversion to the frame size that was given in inches then. As well I realize that bike geometry has changed somewhat since back then, so todays 60 cm frame might have tubes lengths and angles that make it fit like the sizes of bikes in my youth.
But I believe that bike sizing today is still has the same issue as then. Different people have different arm, leg and body lengths. But the sizing systems were built toward an assumed average. As well the calculators that supposedly take those measures and more into account base their size on a particular geometry or two which might not be what you are looking at in the store.
So trying a size or two in both directions seems rational and prudent to me. And as you seem to be into very old bikes too, then today's frame sizing might not work either.
I only have one bike shop fit experience to share, but it was essentially the same. "How tall are you?" "About 6 feet" "K, you'll need a 58" There was a laminated paper chart on the wall, height vs. frame size, evidently this was all the more thought they could put into it.
Thanks all, for the replies.
02-06-18, 10:40 AM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 6,016
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1814 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 923 Times
in
569 Posts
The saddle looks quite forward in the pic.
Stand-over clearance tends to be the limiting factor for me in that situation,
but I have short-ish legs.
Stand-over clearance tends to be the limiting factor for me in that situation,
but I have short-ish legs.
02-06-18, 12:36 PM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New Jersry the beautiful Garden State
Posts: 1,920
Bikes: 2007 Ridley Excalibur, 2003 Orbea Orca, 199? Cannondale Headshock MTB hardtail
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 520 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
10 Posts
Joseph, the Fuji frame looks a little too big for you. It looks like you can make it work by having the saddle low and the stem almost on top of the headset. But that doesn't give you much wiggle room to adjust either up and down. With your longer inseam to height, you are on the right track in choosing a frame that has a little longer seat post length than top tube length.
If I were you, I would first set the saddlle position. Start with ~83% of total inseam (floor to crotch) for the height. Assuming its 34.25" then try 28.5". Then use knee over pedal spindle (KOPS) to get an idea of saddle fore/aft placement. Hold the string below your kneecap (not on it) and see if you can get the weight at the end to be over or close to the pedal spindle and ball of your foot. You might need someone else to help check it. Pedal should be in the 3 o'clock position. After that the saddle stays where it is. Adjust the angle a little up or down depending on what you like after riding on it a bit.
Then stem length is whatever you feel comfy with without being too stretched out. I like a top tube length short enough to let me have around a 140mm stem. When I'm on the brake hoods or in the drops, I see my front hub if it matters. But the top tube, torso and arm length will dictate that, not the saddle fore/aft (after its set).
Edit: Forgot to mention that I like the stem not much lower than the seat. I used to have it lower, but was having some lower back pain and am not as flexible as when I was younger. So I recently flipped my stem to raise the bars a bit. It solved the lower back pain issue for me.
Edit 2: I mention 140mm stem above but I actually have a 120mm stem on one bike and a shorter (110mm?) on another. So had a senior moment and got the length wrong. Oh well. I think the takeaway here is that I like to be a little more over the front wheel.
If I were you, I would first set the saddlle position. Start with ~83% of total inseam (floor to crotch) for the height. Assuming its 34.25" then try 28.5". Then use knee over pedal spindle (KOPS) to get an idea of saddle fore/aft placement. Hold the string below your kneecap (not on it) and see if you can get the weight at the end to be over or close to the pedal spindle and ball of your foot. You might need someone else to help check it. Pedal should be in the 3 o'clock position. After that the saddle stays where it is. Adjust the angle a little up or down depending on what you like after riding on it a bit.
Then stem length is whatever you feel comfy with without being too stretched out. I like a top tube length short enough to let me have around a 140mm stem. When I'm on the brake hoods or in the drops, I see my front hub if it matters. But the top tube, torso and arm length will dictate that, not the saddle fore/aft (after its set).
Edit: Forgot to mention that I like the stem not much lower than the seat. I used to have it lower, but was having some lower back pain and am not as flexible as when I was younger. So I recently flipped my stem to raise the bars a bit. It solved the lower back pain issue for me.
Edit 2: I mention 140mm stem above but I actually have a 120mm stem on one bike and a shorter (110mm?) on another. So had a senior moment and got the length wrong. Oh well. I think the takeaway here is that I like to be a little more over the front wheel.
Last edited by ptempel; 02-08-18 at 07:52 AM.
02-06-18, 02:59 PM
#10
Banned
What fit do you want? Go fast racer, or longer, comfortable, touring, JRA?
Of course larger is also a longer top tube , so ..shorter stem?
can you straddle the frame standing flat footed ?
...
Of course larger is also a longer top tube , so ..shorter stem?
can you straddle the frame standing flat footed ?
...
02-06-18, 04:48 PM
#11
Virgo
Thread Starter
~1" standover, so it's a little snug
Re: the stem, I kind of like the reach/balance where it's at w/ 100mm, but I have a 90 and a 60 also I think in the parts pile. I want to get a 120 also just to have one around. Does it seem like quill stems longer than 120 are a little harder to come by?
Edit: worth noting this is just an extra frame so I'm not super attached. It is a little nicer than the Raleigh, little lighter, little prettier.
Last edited by Phamilton; 02-06-18 at 05:05 PM.
02-06-18, 08:42 PM
#12
Virgo
Thread Starter
Just thinking about it a bit more - this frame is nice enough in my opinion it deserves to be built back up and kept on the road. I was kind of skirting the issue in my head, but it really rides, shifts, and stops nice. The paint isn't perfect, but it's a Celeste-y green color with pink and purple accents, not everybody's cup of tea, but I like it. I'm sure someone else would, too.
If it doesn't fit, I'll sell it, I could prob get $150-200 as spring is coming soon. I'd pay that much for a similar bike in good shape that fit well.
I'm kind of glad I got bored, and glad I got some thoughts from the community. Thanks again, all, for the helpful discussion.
If it doesn't fit, I'll sell it, I could prob get $150-200 as spring is coming soon. I'd pay that much for a similar bike in good shape that fit well.
I'm kind of glad I got bored, and glad I got some thoughts from the community. Thanks again, all, for the helpful discussion.
02-07-18, 10:44 AM
#13
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,527
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3885 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
My opinion is that the seat tube is a good height for you, but the top tube is much too short. Many older frames were built like this. You could try a much longer stem.
You need to roll your hips forward and straighten your back. Having done that, your upper arms should make a 90° angle with your torso, and with hands on hoods, forearms horizontal, your elbows should be in front of your knees, maybe a 1" gap there. Obviously this frame and stem combo is much too short.
I don't know why people ride tiny bikes, but one sure sees that a lot.
You need to roll your hips forward and straighten your back. Having done that, your upper arms should make a 90° angle with your torso, and with hands on hoods, forearms horizontal, your elbows should be in front of your knees, maybe a 1" gap there. Obviously this frame and stem combo is much too short.
I don't know why people ride tiny bikes, but one sure sees that a lot.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
02-08-18, 07:27 AM
#14
Virgo
Thread Starter
Some notably different assessments here.
Here are some better photos, I made no further adjustments to the bike/posture since the first photo.
Here are some better photos, I made no further adjustments to the bike/posture since the first photo.
02-08-18, 07:37 AM
#15
Senior Member
I'm about the same height as you with a slightly longer inseam.
I ride a 62cm frame. For me I find it perfect. I have always preferred larger frames as I feel cramped on smaller ones.
At the end of the day if you're comfortable that is all that matters really. If you rode a smaller framed bike you'd no doubt still have the seat and bars set to something like the levels you have them at now. All you're doing is filling the `air space' that a smaller frame would give you with frame, for what would be effectively the same riding position.
In conclusion, bike size/fit looks good. Let your body and your riding tell you what is right, not what the `experts' tell you to conform with today's trend for an aggressive/competitive fit.
I ride a 62cm frame. For me I find it perfect. I have always preferred larger frames as I feel cramped on smaller ones.
At the end of the day if you're comfortable that is all that matters really. If you rode a smaller framed bike you'd no doubt still have the seat and bars set to something like the levels you have them at now. All you're doing is filling the `air space' that a smaller frame would give you with frame, for what would be effectively the same riding position.
In conclusion, bike size/fit looks good. Let your body and your riding tell you what is right, not what the `experts' tell you to conform with today's trend for an aggressive/competitive fit.
02-08-18, 02:01 PM
#16
Virgo
Thread Starter
@berner
@woodcraft
@ptempel
@Carbonfiberboy
If not much trouble, would you mind looking at these clearer photos and advise if still in agreement with your initial assessments? I really do appreciate the feedback.
@woodcraft
@ptempel
@Carbonfiberboy
If not much trouble, would you mind looking at these clearer photos and advise if still in agreement with your initial assessments? I really do appreciate the feedback.
02-08-18, 04:51 PM
#17
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,527
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3885 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
I think that looks pretty good. I still think a little longer stem would be good, but this is OK. Something sure looks different. Posture, position on saddle, hands? Or maybe not a longer stem, just move the saddle back until your hands feel light on the bars, or until you can briefly take your hands off the bars while riding and not slide forward on the saddle.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
02-08-18, 10:38 PM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 6,016
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1814 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 923 Times
in
569 Posts
If you like it, ride it.
I'd try the saddle down & back a bit.
I had that kind of set up BITD, maybe 4" of seatpost showing.
I'd try the saddle down & back a bit.
I had that kind of set up BITD, maybe 4" of seatpost showing.
02-09-18, 01:44 PM
#19
Virgo
Thread Starter
I think that looks pretty good. I still think a little longer stem would be good, but this is OK. Something sure looks different. Posture, position on saddle, hands? Or maybe not a longer stem, just move the saddle back until your hands feel light on the bars, or until you can briefly take your hands off the bars while riding and not slide forward on the saddle.
02-09-18, 02:12 PM
#20
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,527
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3885 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
No pics yet, but I tried rolling my hips forward. At first, it was crushing my testicles and I couldn't breathe, but I moved the saddle backward and tweaked the angle until that didn't hurt anymore and I was able to move my testicles out from underneath and off to one side. Is that common, moving them to the side? To maintain that posture, I have to pull back on the bars a little when accelerating while seated to resist sliding off the back of the saddle. Does that sound right, or maybe went too far? I've always either had to push down and/or forward on my handlebars, so pulling is counterintuitive. If I didn't mention earlier in the post, I'm still pretty new to riding a road bike. It seems like it might be helpful for me to pick up a cheap trainer.
Tighter shorts should fix the balls issue. You know they're tight enough if you can barely get them over your butt. Your balls should be pulled up and held out of the way by your shorts. I usually reach down there and yank them up just before I ride. Kinda hard to be inobtrusive about it though. I probably have 10 pair which I cycle through, choosing the short according to the ride. Just the right shorts may take a bit to find.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
02-09-18, 02:37 PM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,547
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18350 Post(s)
Liked 4,502 Times
in
3,346 Posts
At 5'10", I've put a lot of miles on about a 60cm frame. I bought it when I was 16, and it just always seemed right... until 3 decades later someone suggested it should be too big for me 
I think my cargo bike is either 61 or 62, and a bit on the large side. I did drop the bottom bracket slightly during re-assembly
Anyway, my favorite point is that once you're sitting on the seat, the top tube doesn't make a whole lot of difference.
I think my cargo bike is either 61 or 62, and a bit on the large side. I did drop the bottom bracket slightly during re-assembly
Anyway, my favorite point is that once you're sitting on the seat, the top tube doesn't make a whole lot of difference.
02-12-18, 05:49 PM
#22
Virgo
Thread Starter
If you can briefly lift your hands off the bars, you have it back far enough, no further. Pulling on the bars when going hard is normal, usually up on the downstroke side and a bit back. Pushing forward on the bars is a sign you're not back far enough.
Tighter shorts should fix the balls issue. You know they're tight enough if you can barely get them over your butt. Your balls should be pulled up and held out of the way by your shorts. I usually reach down there and yank them up just before I ride. Kinda hard to be inobtrusive about it though. I probably have 10 pair which I cycle through, choosing the short according to the ride. Just the right shorts may take a bit to find.
Tighter shorts should fix the balls issue. You know they're tight enough if you can barely get them over your butt. Your balls should be pulled up and held out of the way by your shorts. I usually reach down there and yank them up just before I ride. Kinda hard to be inobtrusive about it though. I probably have 10 pair which I cycle through, choosing the short according to the ride. Just the right shorts may take a bit to find.
02-12-18, 09:27 PM
#23
Senior Member
If you've got your knees behind the pedal spindles or at least easily could if you wanted to, then no way the frame is to large-- some taller riders have larger bikes with shorter stems than 100 because they need a setback seatpost for the legs. Your saddle positon looks okay with a straight post.
02-21-18, 06:20 PM
#24
Virgo
Thread Starter
I did a 15 mile ride last weekend. I really enjoy the benefits of the larger frame and longer reach. It was easier to breathe, easier to find a comfortable position, easier to change positions, just very nice to not feel cramped. I had a little soreness in the legs but I am thinking that has more to do with my lack of flexibility and 2000 miles of having my saddle too far forward than anything related to the bike. I felt great the next day, too. I also really like the 175mm cranks on this bike.
Is there any reason I couldn't/shouldn't try to achieve a similar riding position on a mountain bike as, say, when I'm on the hoods of this one? I gave my brother a big frame MTB a couple years ago and he's not using it and doesn't want it anymore. It has a 24" TT so would require nothing more than a stem swap, if that. I'd love to be able to use it as a utility/winter/back up bike.
Is there any reason I couldn't/shouldn't try to achieve a similar riding position on a mountain bike as, say, when I'm on the hoods of this one? I gave my brother a big frame MTB a couple years ago and he's not using it and doesn't want it anymore. It has a 24" TT so would require nothing more than a stem swap, if that. I'd love to be able to use it as a utility/winter/back up bike.
05-04-18, 05:16 PM
#25
Virgo
Thread Starter
Wanted to offer a quick follow up.
Fuji is again on back burner so I transferred measurements to Raleigh and additionally installed a 130mm stem, longest that I could find. This makes the reach a little longer yet than the Fuji and also factor in the bars are about 3" lower so I'm quite stretched now.
This setup for me is quite comfortable. If I only used the bike for long rides, I would consider a 140 stem if I could find one. 130 is a good compromise between in-town/on the road.
It's actually remarkable how much of a difference 5mm anywhere makes in the overall feel and fit, let alone 30mm on the reach and another 30mm on the saddle setback. It's almost a night and day difference.
I think a 24" frame would be ideal height. I doubt there are many road frames out there with >23" top tubes but I kind of like how the bike handles now with more weight over the front wheel from the longer stem.
@Carbonfiberboy, thank you again for your valuable advice and to all for your contributions.
*********************************Much later edit: the 25” frame wasn’t a bad idea but it didn’t fit. I still had my saddle too high. If I was going to fit a 25” frame, I’d have needed to slam the seatpost to get the saddle height where I have it now. Whether “correct” or not, it “feels right”. I am riding a 1983 Schwinn Voyageur with a 23” frame. The top tube is 22 1/2” American ctc. I believe I mentioned my inseam earlier. I have my saddle set at 30” exactly from center of the crank to the widest point of the saddle, where my sitbones land. I set my saddle setback “by feel”. I use the 80mm stem that came on the bike and I could probably use a 100mm but don’t have any discomfort or handling issues driving me to think about switching it out. Whether the bars are slammed or all the way up doesn’t make a big difference in fit or comfort, it just feels like it sort of affects the handling when my center of gravity is lower and further forward. I seldom spend more than an hour at a time on the bike so I don’t know if any further position tweaking would give any more favorable result. In summary, I’d say if you’re 6’ tall and don’t feel like you fit a 23”frame, you might either be a racer or have your saddle at a “suboptimal” height.
Fuji is again on back burner so I transferred measurements to Raleigh and additionally installed a 130mm stem, longest that I could find. This makes the reach a little longer yet than the Fuji and also factor in the bars are about 3" lower so I'm quite stretched now.
This setup for me is quite comfortable. If I only used the bike for long rides, I would consider a 140 stem if I could find one. 130 is a good compromise between in-town/on the road.
It's actually remarkable how much of a difference 5mm anywhere makes in the overall feel and fit, let alone 30mm on the reach and another 30mm on the saddle setback. It's almost a night and day difference.
I think a 24" frame would be ideal height. I doubt there are many road frames out there with >23" top tubes but I kind of like how the bike handles now with more weight over the front wheel from the longer stem.
@Carbonfiberboy, thank you again for your valuable advice and to all for your contributions.
*********************************Much later edit: the 25” frame wasn’t a bad idea but it didn’t fit. I still had my saddle too high. If I was going to fit a 25” frame, I’d have needed to slam the seatpost to get the saddle height where I have it now. Whether “correct” or not, it “feels right”. I am riding a 1983 Schwinn Voyageur with a 23” frame. The top tube is 22 1/2” American ctc. I believe I mentioned my inseam earlier. I have my saddle set at 30” exactly from center of the crank to the widest point of the saddle, where my sitbones land. I set my saddle setback “by feel”. I use the 80mm stem that came on the bike and I could probably use a 100mm but don’t have any discomfort or handling issues driving me to think about switching it out. Whether the bars are slammed or all the way up doesn’t make a big difference in fit or comfort, it just feels like it sort of affects the handling when my center of gravity is lower and further forward. I seldom spend more than an hour at a time on the bike so I don’t know if any further position tweaking would give any more favorable result. In summary, I’d say if you’re 6’ tall and don’t feel like you fit a 23”frame, you might either be a racer or have your saddle at a “suboptimal” height.
Last edited by Phamilton; 10-18-19 at 11:46 PM.
