jameyj

Seems there has been a few threads recently (OK, all the time) about "that frame size is to small" or "Whoa...your frame is way to big". So I was curious as to what size frame everyone is riding and their corresponding inseam.

oneponychick

31" inseam
54 cm

alanbikehouston

Someone ran a similar thread a few months back and got a bunch of replies. The problem is, many newer road bikes don't follow traditional geomentry, with a top tube that is horizontal to the ground, and the seatpost clamp just above the top tube. So, a guy would post to say "My inseam is 32 inches, and I ride a size 52 bike." Quite unlikely that guy was riding a tradional bike, as his correct frame size (if his slack's inseam is 32 inches) is more likely to be around size 56 (for racing) or size 60 (for touring or commuting).

The second problem in the thread was that some people were referring to inseam as being the inseam on their slacks (32 inches) and the next guy, who also wears 32 inch slacks, was using inseam to mean leg length from the pubic bone done to the floor (35 inches). Without a shared understanding of what "inseam" means, the posted measurements were not very helpful.

The Rivendell website is helpful in relating leg length to frame size. They explain how to measure total leg length from the public bone to the floor. And, they have a chart suggesting frames sizes. Rivendell's chart assumes that their customers are not buying their bikes to race, and so their suggested sizes are about an inch higher than what many bike shops would suggest (many bike shop clerks fit bikes as if every customer will be racing in the Tour de France next July).

LA_Rider

32" / 54cm

jazzy_cyclist

31.5" inseam
54cm (or 53cm) frame

my58vw

38"

Small trek 63cm frame

Albany-12303

30' inseam

53cm Lemond (proper fit)

49 or 50 cm Trek 2300 (sold to me by an overenthusiastic salesman before I knew about proper fitting - but I bought a long stem to compenstate)

60 cm Nishiki (knew it was a bit too big - but mainly use it for leisurely rides)

Nubie

+1

hockey

30 inch inseam
56 Trek

jsf252

Giant TCR's are sized with letters (i.e. S,M,L). For a rider who is 5'8" 160 and has a 30" inseam which of the Giants would you choose? (2005 sizes)
S = 44cm
M = 50cm
L = 55.5cm

Thanks in advance
Josh

DocRay

35 inch inseam, 61 cm frame, 175mm cranks (yes, it matters).

onRoffR

34.5" inseam
58cm cannondale six13 , perfect fit for me,with a 120mm stem and 175mm crank.

jimbud

33 inseam, 55cm Bianchi and a 57cm Orbea

aluckyfiji

~29in inseam, 52cm Felt (90 stem, sloping), 51cm Basso (120 stem, traditional)

fhall1

32 in inseam, 56 Trek

climbo

alan is so right about this, look at the variances in the replies, they are all over the place. It's all about measuring your inseam PROPERLY, then gauging frame size from there.

jameyj

Here is a start -Giant Compact Sizing BUT please visit a Giant dealer and get properly sized.

aham23

34.5 inseam riding 63 cm trek 1000. it may be a tad too big. later.

msheron

32" inseam..............56 Trek Pilot 2.1

mollusk

Inseam only puts an upper bound on the seatpost dimension and really isn't the most important dimension for me. I'm 6' 2" with a "pants size" 32" inseam, hence I have very short legs for someone of my height. Since I haven't won a Lotto I need to get as large a frame "off the rack" as possible without risking some "vital organs" because of my long torso. Maybe someday I'll get a custon frame, but currently there are other priorities in my life that need the $'s more. As of now I have an old (1986) Cannondale 58 cm (c-t-t) and a newish (2002) Lemond Zurich 57 cm (c-t-c) as my road bikes. Both are OK in terms of fit, but I sure would like the top tubes to be just a little bit longer.

biker7

Ditto...we agree. Must not be a national thing.
George

wizzman

34" inseam (32" pant size)

58cm Trek 1500 (not a compact frame)

af2nr

34" inseam, 57cm LeMond, could have went with either a 56 or 58 Cannondale with proper stem.

wicz

36"
58cm van dessel kermis

TnDiamondback

32" on a 54cm felt