Frame size - big or small

Of course one should have their frame a perfect fit, but when buying a stock frame we sometimes have to choose between slightly too big or slightly too small.

Which would you say is better and why?

Many people say that one should go as small as possible for racing and slightly large for comfort. Would you agree?

I would agree that a more aggresive racing position is normally achieved on a smaller frame, and a comfort position on a slightly larger frame. The closer the bar height is to the saddle height will create more of an upright comfort fit. A moderate position has the bars around 3" below saddle height, and an agressive position even lower. However, I wouldn't choose between slightly too big or small, I would find a frame that fits and have an expert fit you on it for the style of riding that you plan to do. Those tiny adjustments make an enormous difference in the long haul. If you compromise on a frame that doesn't fit perfectly, you will regret it and probably be wasting money when you decide to get a frame that fits.

You go with what fits and feel best.Some so better on a bit small (me),others on a bit big.YMMV.

I have often heard that sprinters will go for a smaller frame (for stiffness and transfer of power)... my 2 cents...

__________________
Go Hoos! Wahoowa!

None of the above....pick whatever feels best to you and suits your riding style and goals better.

yeah, and climbers go for a too small frame to save a few grams. I doubt there is a measurable difference in 'stiffness' between otherwise identical frames in a size 56 and a 58 for example. In the real world,go with what fits you best,and ignore the hype and BS.

Another weird question giving options of too small, too big, or just right????

I suppose as far as traditional fitting goes, I go with too small. But as far as i am concerned the size is absoloutely perfect.

I'd probably go for the slightly smaller frame, because, in my opinion, there's
no worse feeling than being on a bike that's too long. You can obviously
get a shorter stem, but you can only go so short, and who wants to ride around with an 8cm stem: they look crap!!!

Speaking from experience, I'd go a bit big. Feeling crammed on the bike, SUCKS. You can always adjust the seat, stem to make it fit better if it's too big.

You don't adjust the seat to acount for a too long TT.

...and there is more downside to an 8cm stem than just looking like crap. Altho one coudl try and supersize it by calling it an 80mm.

You can adjust the seat to make up for a little bit. If the seat moves up, down, forward, back...why couldn't it be adjusted to help?

seat height/ fore/aft position should primarily be used to get you in the correct position in relation to the bottom bracket/ cranks to get the correct pedalling position.

Moving the seat forward to compensate for a too long top tube moves you forward of your ideal riding position (assuming you have your ideal riding position in the first place).

Really, you should set your seat position in the ideal place to acheive correct pedalling position. THEN adjust the bar height/ stem length to acheive the correct reach on the bike.

A frame too long can mean you are unable to do this even with an 80mm stem.

A frame too small (seat tube wise) will mean that the head tube is too short and you can't get the bars up high enough.

Your frame needs to give a combination of manageable top tube length (so you can spec a stem that will give you the correct reach). There is plenty of scope to adjust stem length (90 - 130mm seem to be readily available) so this gives a few centimetres leeway in top tube length on frames you are looking at.

The other important measurement (for me at least) is head tube length as this tells me the height I can set the handlebars to approximately.

Frame (seat tube) measurement is not as reliable as it once was imo as there are so many ways of measuring this now (c-t, c-c, c - top of top tube, horizontal top tubes and sloping top tubes of varying degrees blah blah). It's not as easy as saying "I ride a 60" which was always the case when all frames had horizontal tubes and were measured c-t. They all had pretty much the same design.

All much more complex now!

FWIW, I am in the market for a new frame and I am looking at slightly larger frames than most LBS's seem to suggest. This is because experience has told me that I am long legged for my height and need to get the seat high up. This means that on a smaller frame (that LBS seem to suggest all the time), the head tubes are too short and I can't get the bars high enough (as per current bike sold to me by LBS). This gives a slightly longer top tube than ideal but I have found a few frames where I should be able to get the correct position with a 90mm stem. (short, but not too short imo).

Sorry. This poll is starting to look pointless. I wish I didn't include the third option because what I meant was that the ideal fit would be a more expensive option or unavailable from the prefered manufacturer. Most manufacturers skip sizes having only even or only odd numbered sizes, and many make bigger jumps like from 52cm to 55cm, for example.

Does this mean that all those voters that choose the third option would avoid the manufacturer completely, and pay a lot more money or get a frame that fits perfectly but lacks in something else?

Frame must fit perfectly, otherwise you won't be satisfied and will have to buy another one in the future. Minor adjustments (seat, handlebars, stem) can be made. If you're not fully grown, I recommend buying cheap frames and change to equally cheap bigger ones as you grow up. Then spend money on components and maintenance you really need. (tires, chains, etc)

Everyone has different build- shoulders, upper leg, leg/arm ratio... You should measure yourself and find a bike which fits that measurement. Check Lennard Zinn's book "The Art of Road bike Maintenance."