Nemosengineer 

I am one of those guys that falls into the blank spots on frame fit charts. I am 69 inches tall with a 30 inch inseam, my cycling inseam measures at just under 32 inches which is a unusable number for me as I rock big time at that number, so 30 "ish" inches it is, with good leg extension. This puts me on a sporty 52.5 to 53cm C to C road frame with 170mm cranks and a bottom bracket center to top of seat dimension of 69.5 cm. I feel this is a good basic fit for my body as the K.O.P.s falls in the my middle of the seat rails on a seat post with 25mm of setback. so with a 53cm C to C top tube and 100mm stem 1 1/2 inches below the nose of the seat. This is the sweet spot for me as I never feel compressed or stretched with this setup and the drops are very use-able.
So in anyone's book this appears to be a very strange fit. I know I'm not the only one who has "gone off the charts", so please tell me about what works for you.

: Mike

clubman 

Somewhat similar here. 68 inches, 28.5" inseam and long torso and reach. A 53 cm seat tube and a 56 cm top tube is my sweet spot with a zero setback seatpost to get me the most power. Typically I adapt 54cm square frames and use 130 mm stems with low seats and lower stems. I preferred 165 or 170 cranks but unsuccessful knee replacement and revisions have reduced my flexion or bend, requiring 150mm cranks, or less.

kaiserschmarrn

My measurements are almost identical to you in measurement. My bike product page Trek Emonda ALR 5 Disc puts me in a 56 cm, just barely, and that is what I have. It seems fine. I have not tried a 54 cm, though. I don't know if is my best size. In the past, I was riding a late 70s Peugeot with a 23" (58 cm?) frame. It was probably big on me, but I never knew any better and never noticed.

Danny

Nemosengineer 

Thanks Danny,
You got me thinking, I just now found a fit article by Merlin Cycles, they talked about something called "Ape Index", The index a measurement of your wingspan in ratio to your height. Most humans have a neutral ape index, or a ratio of 1, which means that the length from your fingertip to fingertip is the same as your height. Longer arms than you are tall: you’ve got a positive ape index. Shorter wingspan than how high you stand? You’ve got a negative ape index. They use this as a defining factor if you are between frame sizes.
Well I discovered something new, I have short arms, I am on the negative side if that index by about 3 inches or about 7.5cm. this makes me think that is why I favor the 53cm top tube. This may be a factor in why you like a 56cm frame and my French fit 55cm Bob Jackson with a 80mm stem doesn't get that much use. Thanks again you got me thinking.

: Mike

kaiserschmarrn

Mike, I also saw that site, and even one or two other sites with similar information. I also learned something new; that my arms are long for my height. My armspan is longer by something like 4cm, not the 5cm differential either way that they quote, but still, some of the sites quote that any amount over or under your height might be grounds for going up or down to the next frame size from what is typical. I think that a hypothetical 55cm would be perfect, if made, but I am not sure if I should maybe be in a 54cm. My measurements put me (for most size charts) at the bottom end for a 56 and at the top end for a 54.

Danny

merziac

Nemosengineer

So probably no help here but I am at the other end of the same spectrum, 6ft+, 38 in inseam. I have a lot of 60,1, 2, 3, 4cm, 24, 25in and they look like this.

Seatpost and stem for days, always seemed to work ok.






Then came these 2.

The big Merz was first, 26in. rides like a dream, fluke? we'll see, enter 25.5 Paramount, both of these ride better the further I ride them. I always knew I needed bigger frames, they just don't come up often and I always made it work.





It led to this, speced from the big Merz and a 61cm Bruce Gordon with odd criteriumish geometry. Dave Levy of TiCycles was surprised that I had both bikes fitted exactly the same for me and made some of the new specs based on that.




This is the result, it is sized to take me to the end, whatever that is. It also rides like a dream, no big rides yet but the more I ride it the better I like it. Over 200 commuting miles so far and keeps getting better.

So the moral may be find the right builder and fit from bikes that work for you.

merziac

Nemosengineer

I would also encourage you to make sure you look at Rivendell's fit calculator as well, maximum, exact, correct inseam or PBH is crucial albeit skewed in our situations.

Most fit calculators use this but many don't emphasize it enough IMO.

SJX426 

Nemosengineer Dave Moulton, of Fuso fame, has an interesting article on his blog of how he sized frames for customers for several decades. The title is "A different thought on frame sizing."

randyjawa 

I get it that fit and fit set-up is hugely important but, for me, I work with what I have. Things, concerning fit and riding comfort, have changed over the years.

For years, I felt best on a 56cm square frame with a 90mm stem, sort of like this...


But old age reduced my height, making a 54cm square frame with a 90m stem. sort of like this, feel a bit better...

or this...


But just a few days ago, I bought an old Torpado Professional with a 58cm seat tube (not sure about top tube length) with a 60mm stem. Perfect for an old guy who wants to go and worries little about how fast. Time in the saddle and comfort, coupled with a wee touch of vintage style, gets the job done, these days...

RobbieTunes

5'6"
30.5" trouser inseam

54cm
70mm-80mm stem, 2-3" saddle-bar drop
0-15mm setback on the post
Normal reach bars
Some toe overlap

In a pinch,
56cm,
0-setback,
60-70mm stem.
Short reach bars.

It only took years and $ thousands to figure out.

noglider 

Last time I checked, I am 5'9" tall. I think when I was 20 I was 5'10" or almost. I've ridden bikes ranging from 54cm to 58cm, all comfortably. I have a 30" pants inseam, so slightly short legs and long torso for my height. I haven't measured my arms.

I've read a ton about bike fit over the years, and when I read Peter White's article, I realized that a lot of it is bunk. One thing that most people don't measure is a person's preference, and his method weighs that heavily.

I've always been very stiff, even when I was young. Now I'm even stiffer. I've finally started to work on that. I have a problem I haven't been able to solve. I like to lean forward on a bike but it also causes me pain after an hour or two. I noticed I'm happiest when my bars are one or two inches below my saddle. I thought raising my bars or using a shorter stem extension would relieve the pain. Maybe it does but I just don't like it. So maybe most of the solution isn't to modify my bike but to modify my body, i.e. improve my flexibility. One of my bikes has a tall stem with a short extension, and I'm going to replace it with a shorter stem with a shorter extension. Basically, I'll be aiming to make my back hurt so that I'm comfortable pedaling.

Piff 

I'm in my 20s, and, just like you, have always been stiff. These dead roach stretches may be helpful to work into your stretch routine, I find it really helps to relieve tension in my back muscles. It is difficult to do them correctly at first, but once you do it right a few times it's a piece of cake.

I learned about them in a class called Corrective Flexibility taught by an Olympic athletes trainer, so I promise these aren't bunk

​​​​​

kaiserschmarrn

I looked for it and found it. I found it interesting, but so far, it seems to put me in roughly the same spread of frame sizes that nearly every other chart and sizing method does.

Dave Moulton's Blog - Dave Moulton's Bike Blog - Finding a virtual frame size

Dave Moulton's Blog - Dave Moulton's Bike Blog - A Different Thought on Frame Sizing

What is "C to C" and "C to T" under the column for "Frame Size" in his chart?

Danny

merziac

He trained in England under oldschool builders, the C to T is C to C + 2cm to account for points, scallops and variations in the seatlug.

He also talks about how he would have done it differently if he had known that wasn't the only way to measure it but by then it was too late.

Cougrrcj

OK, I'm an ape. I used to be 5'8-1/2", but as I've gotten older ( 62 in two weeks), I'm barely 5'7". I wear 34" sleeve, 18 - 18-1/2" neck dress shirt, longish torso, but only a 29.5" pants inseam. Waaay back 40+ years ago they tried to 'fit' me in a 21" frame, and I was definitely cramped fore-aft. I prefer to ride a 23"/57cm classic diamond frame for the length... but 'the boys' would feel like their space was invaded if I were to straddle the toptube flat-footed -- but who does that anyway??? 46 years, and I've never 'nutted myself' on my 'too-big' frames...

Call me Magilla



.

canklecat

I'm 5'11", 150 lbs, with 76" wingspan, fingertip to fingertip. Yeah, I'm a freak. It was great when I was an amateur boxer. Usually all I needed to do was jab-jab-jab. Although a high school friend in my weight class was over 6' tall with even more freakishly long arms at 140 lbs. I ate a lot of jabs trying to get to him. (Protip: Long reach doesn't translate to MMA, and can be negated by fast, clever infighters like Roberto Duran and Dwight Muhammad Qawi, who could out-jab taller opponents and negate that reach with some kinda witchcraft deviltry).

But at age 62 after plenty of injuries, that arm length doesn't really translate to bike comfort. Usually I prefer a shorter reach than factory standards. So I'm more upright, less aero, but comfy.

After a year of physical therapy to improve my upper body I'm gonna try a longer stem on at least one road bike to see if I can get a bit more aero. And I prefer the handling of a bike with a longer stem. Both my road bikes have 90mm stems, rather than the original 120-130mm stems, and while they're comfy they also feel twitchy on fast curves on rippled pavement. Even pounding up a climb with both hands on the bar top near the stem feels twitchy with shorter stems.

My Ironman is something like a 57cm or 58cm, I can never figure out how Centurion's measurements work. Whatever, it's comfy and fun to ride. My Trek 5900 is 56cm and looked a bit small at first glance but actually fits me perfectly. My legs are kinda freaky long too, especially from hip to knee. And my feet are longish, 10.5 to 11, depending on the shoe. So I tend to raise my seat post more than most folks my height would on the same size frames. I prefer getting closer to full leg extension than the other way -- too low makes my knees complain immediately.

My Univega Via Carisma appears to be a 60cm and is technically a bit large for me, but I use it as an upright city bike, with albatross swept bars, and I really like the high vantage point in traffic. Even with 175 cranks it doesn't feel too large. I'm leaning more toward 170 and 172.5 cranks, but every time I ride a bike with 175 it takes about 15 minutes of riding before I realize, eh, this is okay too.

Johno59

With the folks I advise, a sore back indicates you are over reaching and the rigidity of straight arms transfers road shock into wrists and back. If you set up so your arms are slightly bent that allows your elbows to act as shock-absorbers. A good test is you should be able to just about hold your body position if you let go of the hoods and hold your upper body at the same angle for a few seconds with ease.

noglider 

@Johno59, thank you. My elbows are definitely bent. I suspect my back is extremely weak. When I do deadlifts, I can only do low weights. I need to improve that.

Kabuki12

I am 6'+ maybe 6'1" on a good day! My inseam is 35" . I ride a 25" frame and still have seat post adjustment. My short bikes are 60cm so anything between 60-63 works. I could probably go a bit taller. I do like a short cockpit so that is why I stick with racing geometry , it works with my short trunk.

My 60cm Medici with seat post up

philbob57

I used to be 5' 7", now 5' 6" at age 75. I've owned a 58, a 50, a 54, and a 21. I have come down on the top tube, and I liked it so little that I refuse to remember the incidents themselves, just that I had them. I weigh just over 200 now, down from 215-220 a year ago. PBH is about 30.5".

I last looked for bikes in 1981, when I weighed 170-180, after the bike I loved (54 CM Atala Competezione, label said Reynolds 531 main triangle) was stolen. Nothing felt right - Miyata, Raleigh, Fuji, Peugeot, Gitane. They were all 54 CM square. In desperation, I bought a used production Turin-labelled 21" MKM frame. I loved this bike even more than I did my Atala. A few years ago, I put my measurements into Competitive Cyclists model. It looked like 21" was a good seat tube size, a CM shy of the French Fit recommendation. TT reco was 56+, stem length reco ws 11-12 CM.

I measured my bike - 54 CM ST, 56 CM TT, 12 CM stem, setback ... just about everything was close to French Fit. As I say, I really enjoy riding the bike and believe i just lucked out fit-wise. I've ridden 3 bikes other than mine in the last 6 years - 2 square, one essentially square (nominal 54 ST, 54 ETT). I liked them but felt cramped. I'm not saying I couldn't get used to them, especially with a 13 or 14 CM stem, but I still like my bike.

All ST measurements C-T. I'm pretty sure my bike's angles are 73 and 73.

Nemosengineer 

Thanks everyone for all the suggestions and advice, I'm still plowing through it all, My takeaways are, educate myself, evaluate my current fit by piling on the miles, make my bikes work for me.
The biggest and best things are all you great people sharing your experience with getting your best fit and what works for you in the real world. This is priceless!!!
I forgot to post a photo of what my current best fit looks like. The goal is to make the current project bike fit even better


Thank You All: Mike

repechage

I am close in size, used to be taller but gravity strikes back.
The saddle setback reference is very variable, be careful, I have a number of saddles that if I " dimensionally " set them up the same, my position would not be the same,
I think one really needs a second person to drop a plumb bob off you knee and with the cranks horizontal to the horizon, note the position in reference to the forward pedal axis.
I have 8-10 cm of drop to the top of the bars.
Most of my time on the tops or the hoods.
Most with the same bend of bar.
Other brands require a dimension reference from the top of the pelvis to the wrists.
Many bars have different forward projections, so I will measure to the hoods.

Many riders have their saddle too high. Gets more power, encourages higher gears... slower cadence.
Plenty of guys on mod bikes I spin up to where they are laboring away in a 53x 15? 16? 17? does not leave them much for the descents.

Forgot, take into account your flexibility or lack of it.

repechage

When I was in college, the only time I could touch my toes is when I had been up all night doing design or art work. Was a known "thing" so it is possible to stretch it out, just does take effort!

Bianchigirll 

I like to sit up right so a tali’s stem is best

USAZorro

I am puzzled by the OP's calculation of ideal TT length. I am 69" tall, but with a closer to 31.5" standover. Raleigh's from the 1970's in the 21.5" seat tube size are all nearly perfect fits for me. I prefer 80 - 90 mm stems. Perhaps try one of these with a slammed saddle and a 110 - 120 mm stem?