Anyone prefer larger frames?
 

I had a fitting done in the 1990s and also a few years ago and was always recommended a 56cm bike. I am a little over 6 ft. tall with a 33.7 inch inseam and an average reach.

Now that I'm in my mid 40s I have found that I vastly prefer frames that are 58 and 59cm and I would probably feel fine on a 60cm bike. 58cm are definitely my sweet spot. I love the fact that you don't have to jack up the stem to get a correct fit and I also like the feeling of being "higher" on the bike. This may have something to do with the fact that I don't race anymore, but I get the feeling people are riding bikes that are generally too small and uncomfortable because "that's what the pros ride."

Thoughts?

Prefer for What? Touring Yes , MTB maybe not. racing bikes? Yes, they seem to like smaller.. get low aero, = faster.

there is the top tube part of the fit to consider, as well.. Paid Fittings , probably are biased towards Racing ...


I have various 58, 57, 56 and 54 size bikes , Here, bought over the last 40 years.. of various types,






..

I ordered my customary 54 cm but got 56 in error. Seller suggested I try it a week or so before he replaced it. Since it came with higher level components I decided to take him up on offer. Two weeks later there was no way I wanted 54. I am 5'7"

Oh yeah. There is no way I could ever ride anything less than a 58cm. I think I would feel fine on a 60.

Grant Peterson definitely has the right idea about sizing; unless one is racing or doing TTs than the need for a low-slung frame is pretty much a moot point.

Mainly just fast recreational road and gravel riding and a few cyclocross races. Maybe a road race thrown in here and there.

It's hard to tell much from two body measurements...But if you are more comfortable on a larger (than recommended) frame, then that is what you should ride.

I do like the feeling of being stretched out rather than hunched over.

You want a Cyclocross Competitive race bike? horizontal top tubes are better,

some parts of the lap may be done faster running , than granny gear pedaling ,

then you throw the bike on your shoulder.. quickest lap times wins..






...

Yeah, I've had a similar experience. I'm close to your height, and started out on a 52 cm frame 8 years ago. At the time it seemed like a good fit, but as I've lost weight and became a stronger rider I find that I like my torso to be extended much more than that.

Not too long ago I was shopping for a new road bike and I figured I wanted a 54. Someone convinced me to try a 56 they had in stock: fit me like a glove, I can't imagine going to anything smaller.

I have the misfortune of being in between sizes for Cannondale race bikes. Technically I should probably be on a 52, but I have some back issues that make them really uncomfortable for me. So I ride a 54 without much seat post showing.

One of the things to keep in mind about running a larger frame is the crank arms. My CAAD 10 had 172.5, and my Evo had 175mm arms; going to the right size arms for me at 170 really made a difference.

I am 6 foot even and for the last 20 years I always rode at least a 58-59 cm frame.
I tried a a friend's 56 cm frame and it was way too small for me to feel comfortable. I never tried a 60, but I probably will be comfortable on it as well, slamming the stem all the way down.

My sweet spot is a 59 cm frame, not many manufactures make frames in that size
Out of 4 bike that I currently have two are 58 cm and two are 59 cm.

I did, until I pulled a groin at the beginning of a bike tour and spent the next two days only getting off the bike at lunch and dinner because I was unable to get my leg up and over :eek:

But yeah, I generally prefer a bit bigger bike than recommended. Especially so, as I have a long torso, anything that is for "my height" leaves me a bit cramped up top.

Kind of - depending on suggested sizing, I tend to go for frames a bit larger than what's recommended for my height. I feel more comfortable being stretched out (and for whatever reason, tend to get sore in my upper back when I'm more upright and/or on a smaller frame.)

This can be a problem on vintage frames, as often it's hard for me to stand over a frame with a long enough top tube. Compact frames tend to work better. Some of the women-specific compact frames are great, so long as the stack isn't crazy high to make it more upright and "comfortable".

Hard to imagine a normally proportioned six footer being fitted to a 56. I don't think that would happen today. Most folks I know ride what suits them. I don't see large numbers of obviously ill fitted bikes other than neighborhood/ MUP riders.

Yeah, 56 sounds small for someone 6 feet tall.

Yep. At some point a Cadillac is more fitting than a Porsche. Never doubt Grant Petersen.

I am 6'1 and have always used a 58.

A bit over 6 ft and you had more than one fitter suggest a 56? Hmm.

I’m 6’1” and was fitted with a 63x57 Raleigh Super Course when I started riding in the 1970s. I have long femurs and short torso, and I don’t like a lot of drop between saddle and bars; so the this has been a perfect size for me. Here’s one of my tall bikes.

I'm almost exactly 183cm tall. So yeah, just a hair over 6 ft. Yep, every time I've been fitted I've been fitted on a 56. I even raced on a 56 for years, but it had a crazy drop from seat to bars. Sorry about the tiny photo.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3...0/Sweet3.0.jpg

Edit: and mind you these were always racing oriented shops.

Nice! Super comfy.

I prefer slightly large. I think it is easier to adjust-to-fit a slightly large frame successfully, than trying to fit a slightly smaller frame.

which of the three styles of fit are you? - Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

When I first started cycling I followed the fit method in Greg LeMond's book. At 5'10" w/ 32.25" inseam I rode a 54 frame. It worked very well for me. These days I'm down to 5' 9" w/32" inseam. I ride a 55 Guru steel and a 58 Masi AL. I have a shorter stem for the Masi. Both are fine but the Guru is perfect. So, IMO there is a range of frames you can ride comfortably and efficiently. For me it's 54 to 58. If I were to build my own frame it would be a 55 with a 55 TT.

Just ride a bike that fits you? At 6'4", all my bike are XL, most are in the 24-25" TT length.

I mostly like to find one that has raised up handlebars. If I am scrunched a bit on the frame part it does not bother me a ton.

This is one of those topics that gets caught in relativism. Many of the folks here expressing an enjoyment of "large" frames are actually riding normal frames and used to have small frames.

Despite some of the fitting tools out there, the vast majority of folks riding road racing bikes should have been fitted like the following:
5'2"=48cm, 5'4"=50cm, 5'6"=52cm, 5'8"=54cm, 5'10=56cm, 6'=58cm, 6'2"=60cm, 6'4"=62cm.

Manufacturers use this scale, and years of watching what came out of the fit studio confirms that these numbers match reality more often than not. And it shouldn't be a surprise that the most common US frame size is a 56 and the average mail height is 5'10" in the US.

Which isn't to say that anyone needs to stick to the above chart, but it pays to be aware of where your frame and height match up.

There is always much discussion of long and short legs, but people with short legs and long torsos don't really benefit from riding a very small bike that matches their legs while ignoring the long reach conferred by their long upper body. Often, using height strikes the best balance between saddle height and reach in such cases.

New tall head tube geometries offer a great option for leggy folks to "size down" while keeping adequate stack.

Why?