Noob Here: Sizing on older steel road bikes
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 42
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Noob Here: Sizing on older steel road bikes
Before I drive a few hours to buy an older, steel road bike, I wanted to make sure the sizing is the same as newer bikes with sloping top tubes and such. I saw something somewhere suggesting a 56 cm bike was for someone 5'4"-5'7", and thought that can't be right. Can anyone confirm that if I ride a 58 cm "newer" road bike, that I would also ride a 58 cm older, steel bike, minus the small differences from brand to brand?
#2
Wookie Jesus inspires me.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,215
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Before I drive a few hours to buy an older, steel road bike, I wanted to make sure the sizing is the same as newer bikes with sloping top tubes and such. I saw something somewhere suggesting a 56 cm bike was for someone 5'4"-5'7", and thought that can't be right. Can anyone confirm that if I ride a 58 cm "newer" road bike, that I would also ride a 58 cm older, steel bike, minus the small differences from brand to brand?
The best quick-and-dirty method is to match top tube length, but even that can be a bad approximation since it ignores other features of geometry.
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 20,305
Mentioned: 130 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3464 Post(s)
Liked 2,831 Times
in
1,997 Posts
There aren't "small" differences from brand to brand. A 58 in one brand can be way different than a 58 in another. There is also no difference between how bikes are sized now and back then. Bike sizing has always been non-standardized.
The best quick-and-dirty method is to match top tube length, but even that can be a bad approximation since it ignores other features of geometry.
The best quick-and-dirty method is to match top tube length, but even that can be a bad approximation since it ignores other features of geometry.
Top tube measure has thankfully been center to center and almost always along a nice Level top tube.
Size can also vary depending on athleticism and intended use. All else being equal, a slightly larger frame makes it easier to set the bar height close to or at the saddle height without a long quill stem, but rarely are all things equal.
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,880
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1858 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
There are other vintage variations: Masi sized bikes by seat tube length from BB center to top of seat lug. About 1.5 cm longer than c-c.
I think c-c was common at least in Italian bikes long before the '80s, but considering I'm not Italian nor did I understand sizing back in the '60s, I can't really say.
I think c-c was common at least in Italian bikes long before the '80s, but considering I'm not Italian nor did I understand sizing back in the '60s, I can't really say.
#6
Thrifty Bill
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mountains of Western NC
Posts: 23,526
Bikes: 86 Katakura Silk, 87 Prologue X2, 88 Cimarron LE, 1975 Sekai 4000 Professional, 73 Paramount, plus more
Mentioned: 96 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1236 Post(s)
Liked 964 Times
in
628 Posts
1. Most sellers get size wrong, often way wrong. So being able to eyeball size from pictures is an important skill to avoid needless trips.
2. Myself, on modern bikes, I am a size or two smaller than vintage bikes.
+1 Then you have the whole center to center, center to top issue.
I would be shocked if a 58cm bike fit someone 5-4 to 5-7.
2. Myself, on modern bikes, I am a size or two smaller than vintage bikes.
+1 Then you have the whole center to center, center to top issue.
I would be shocked if a 58cm bike fit someone 5-4 to 5-7.
#7
Full Member
1. Most sellers get size wrong, often way wrong. So being able to eyeball size from pictures is an important skill to avoid needless trips.
2. Myself, on modern bikes, I am a size or two smaller than vintage bikes.
+1 Then you have the whole center to center, center to top issue.
I would be shocked if a 58cm bike fit someone 5-4 to 5-7.
2. Myself, on modern bikes, I am a size or two smaller than vintage bikes.
+1 Then you have the whole center to center, center to top issue.
I would be shocked if a 58cm bike fit someone 5-4 to 5-7.
#8
Curmudgeon in Training
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Rural Retreat, VA
Posts: 1,956
Bikes: 1974 Gazelle Champion Mondial, 2010 Cannondale Trail SL, 1988 Peugeot Nice, 1992ish Stumpjumper Comp,1990's Schwinn Moab
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
8 Posts
You can't base things on overall height either. I'm just shy of 6'-3", but I'm mostly torso. I comfortably ride 60/61 cm frames but need a 130mm stem in most of them. People with longer legs, but similar height can ride 63 cm frames with few problems, and run a shorter stem.
You need to know inseam length and your reach/bar height comfort level.
You need to know inseam length and your reach/bar height comfort level.
#9
Senior Member
If you want C&V folks to opine about what size older steel frame bike you should ride, it would probably be more fruitful to state your height, floor-pubic bone and wing span measurements rather than tell us what size modern bike you ride. Well, for me it would, anyway.
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,768
Bikes: Cinelli, Paramount, Raleigh, Carlton, Zeus, Gemniani, Frejus, Legnano, Pinarello, Falcon
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 Posts
Back in the day, the typical advice was to pick a bike you could stand over flat footed without crushing your hoo-haws. To some extent, top tube length can be adjusted with stem length and seat postion. Many classic frames were built square, seat tube and top tube more or less the same.