Minimum Standover?

Just took delivery of a custom randonneur frame. There is maybe just shy inch of an inch of
standover in the middle of the top tube which slopes gently. The standover seems tight to me. Is
this acceptable? I am used to frames with a lot more standover so I am not sure I am on firm ground
if I assert that there is a problem. Sort of difficult to determine where my anatomy begins and ends
down there. I sort of pull everything forward to get that shy inch. In real life the lay of the
anatomy would be different. Anxiously awaiting opinions. Thanks.

Gary Jacobson Rosendale, NY

"Gary Jacobson" <gjacobson-remove-this-bit-@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:zBd3b.19933$lk1.10857@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Just took delivery of a custom randonneur frame. There is maybe just shy inch of an inch of
> standover in the middle of the top tube which slopes gently. The standover seems tight to me. Is
> this acceptable? I am used to frames with a lot more standover so I am not sure I am on
firm
> ground if I assert that there is a problem. Sort of difficult to determine where my anatomy begins
> and ends down
there.
> I sort of pull everything forward to get that shy inch. In real life the
lay
> of the anatomy would be different. Anxiously awaiting opinions. Thanks.
>
> Gary Jacobson Rosendale, NY
>
>Gary, IMO standover means virtually nothing. Very seldom does a rider
'standover' his bike, he's got one foot down or off to one side slightly. One of my best bikes
toptube is "right there". The bike fits me perfectly. Standover is only a comfort factor, but not
something to concern yourself with.

Gary Jacobson:

> Just took delivery of a custom randonneur frame. There is maybe just shy inch of an inch of
> standover in the middle of the top tube which slopes gently. The standover seems tight to me. Is
> this acceptable? I am used to frames with a lot more standover so I am not sure I am on firm
> ground if I assert that there is a problem. Sort of difficult to determine where my anatomy begins
> and ends down there. I sort of pull everything forward to get that shy inch. In real life the lay
> of the anatomy would be different.

When working out what standover height I needed for my bikes, I found it necessary to determine what
my leg inseam measurement was. One of the better ways to do this is to stand against a wall in your
socks, feet about a foot apart, and carefully push a thin hardcover book (spine side up) up between
your legs as far as it would comfortably go (keeping the book square against the wall). Mark the
level of the book spine on the wall and measure the distance to the floor. Compare this measurement
to your bike's standover height. You might find that you have a larger clearance than what you've
measured by just standing over your bike.

Unless you are very short (less then 5 foot) there is no reason to have less than 1" of clearance on
a custom frame. Stems can point up, top tubes can slope, seat posts can be long and extended.

So if your current custom frame design has this, then perhaps it was designed for someone's ideal
and not yours. Didn't the builder ask you how much clearance you wanted?

-Bruce

"Gary Jacobson" <gjacobson-remove-this-bit-@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:zBd3b.19933$lk1.10857@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Just took delivery of a custom randonneur frame. There is maybe just shy inch of an inch of
> standover in the middle of the top tube which slopes gently. The standover seems tight to me. Is
> this acceptable? I am used to frames with a lot more standover so I am not sure I am on
firm
> ground if I assert that there is a problem. Sort of difficult to determine where my anatomy begins
> and ends down
there.
> I sort of pull everything forward to get that shy inch. In real life the
lay
> of the anatomy would be different. Anxiously awaiting opinions. Thanks.
>
> Gary Jacobson Rosendale, NY

Gary Jacobson said...

> Just took delivery of a custom randonneur frame. There is maybe just shy inch of an inch of
> standover in the middle of the top tube which slopes gently. The standover seems tight to me. Is
> this acceptable? I am used to frames with a lot more standover so I am not sure I am on firm
> ground if I assert that there is a problem. Sort of difficult to determine where my anatomy begins
> and ends down there. I sort of pull everything forward to get that shy inch. In real life the lay
> of the anatomy would be different. Anxiously awaiting opinions. Thanks.
>
> Gary Jacobson Rosendale, NY

Sounds perfect according to this enlightening article: http://rivbike.com/html/rr_comfposition.html

It's a custom frame, so you were fitted at some point, weren't you? Sounds to me like they nailed
it. You should stop worrying and ride. I assume the warranty is longer than a few days. Ride it and
when you aren't riding, research fit to see if you think they made a mistake if it doesn't seem
right. But if this company builds custom frames it doesn't seem likely that they botched job
#1--the fit.

"Bruce" <bfrech.SPAMDELETE@spam.erols.com> wrote in message news:bijrd9$rko$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
> Unless you are very short (less then 5 foot) there is no reason to have
less
> than 1" of clearance on a custom frame. Stems can point up, top tubes can slope, seat posts can be
> long and extended.
>
> So if your current custom frame design has this, then perhaps it was designed for someone's ideal
> and not yours. Didn't the builder ask you
how
> much clearance you wanted?

Yes, in the process of arranging for this frame I shared my concern about having enough standover
after reviewing the diagram plans.

I was told that there'd be "plenty."

I'm happy with "adequate" and it seems, according to most input, that is what I have.

Gary

Gary Jacobson <gjacobson-remove-this-bit-@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
>Just took delivery of a custom randonneur frame. There is maybe just shy inch of an inch of
>standover in the middle of the top tube which slopes gently. The standover seems tight to me. Is
>this acceptable?

_I_ think it's acceptable - on my first proper road bike I had negative standover, because I was
still growing and we didn't really want to replace it after six months. It doesn't matter - when was
the last time you stood with one foot either side of the frame? My right foot is always either in
the pedal or being swung over back to the left-hand side to dismount altogether.

If you have one of those unpleasant falls onto the top tube, standover doesn't help because you
instinctively bend your knees - your instincts don't know you're going to bang your testicles as a
result, alas.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!

"Gary Jacobson" <gjacobson-remove-this-bit-@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<zBd3b.19933$lk1.10857@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> Just took delivery of a custom randonneur frame. There is maybe just shy inch of an inch of
> standover in the middle of the top tube which slopes gently. The standover seems tight to me. Is
> this acceptable?

Gary, My favorite road bike has a bit less clearance than this, I'd say. I've put on lots of miles
on since 1978 and never had an issue with this, even during a few minor crashes. If the bike
otherwise fits you, I'd consider this to be fine. Personally, I think larger bikes look better also,
up to about 63CM - ymmv.

If we were talking about off-road bikes, then I would want lots more clearance 'down there'.

How's your new custom? Discussing it on the bob list? Erik Brooks

The trend lately has been to have more clearance because the racing set has been going with the
"smaller is better" philosophy and compact geometry, but
3/4-in. is actually fine -- particulary in a randonneur type of bike which is really supposed to be
built for long-distance comfort. This allows you to get your bars higher than you can on a smaller
frame, which gives more comfort on longer rides.

I used to go with the smallest frame I could reasonably fit on, based on advice from local shops --
but after talking with the folks at Rivendell, I ordered a randonneur bike from them and went with a
much taller frame (and less clearance) than what I've been told for a long time. I am more
comfortable on this bike than I could ever have imagined.

This person's frame, with just less than an inch of standover, is probably just right for him.

"Bruce" <bfrech.SPAMDELETE@spam.erols.com> wrote in message news:bijrd9$rko$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
> Unless you are very short (less then 5 foot) there is no reason to have
less
> than 1" of clearance on a custom frame. Stems can point up, top tubes can slope, seat posts can be
> long and extended.
>
> So if your current custom frame design has this, then perhaps it was designed for someone's ideal
> and not yours. Didn't the builder ask you
how
> much clearance you wanted?
>
> -Bruce
>
> "Gary Jacobson" <gjacobson-remove-this-bit-@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:zBd3b.19933$lk1.10857@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > Just took delivery of a custom randonneur frame. There is maybe just shy inch of an inch of
> > standover in the middle of the top tube which slopes gently. The standover seems tight to me. Is
> > this acceptable? I am used to frames with a lot more standover so I am not sure I am on
> firm
> > ground if I assert that there is a problem. Sort of difficult to determine where my anatomy
> > begins and ends down
> there.
> > I sort of pull everything forward to get that shy inch. In real life the
> lay
> > of the anatomy would be different. Anxiously awaiting opinions. Thanks.
> >
> > Gary Jacobson Rosendale, NY
> >
>

So, what sort of argument does Rivendell use to justify more material ( a larger frame) when the
only thing your body notices is the three points of contact - saddle, pedals, handlebars?

You could use any shape frame, and have the 3 points positoned the same and your body would say the
fit is right. For example when I ordered a custom frame I requested a lower BB, a slacker seat
angle. But I then positioned the saddle and bars in the same vertical and horizontal positions
relative to the BB and the bike feels the same as my old bike. OK, the lower BB might be different
when tossing the bike while standing but it's so little different I don't notice it.

Is there something other than fit that they propose is better with larger frames? Does it handle
differently? Is it stiffer or more flexible? If so in what direction?

-Bruce

"Kyle Brooks" <kyle-chrisbrooks@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5mw3b.16207$jY2.12285@newsread1....earthlink.net...
> The trend lately has been to have more clearance because the racing set
has
> been going with the "smaller is better" philosophy and compact geometry,
but
> 3/4-in. is actually fine -- particulary in a randonneur type of bike which is really supposed to
> be built for long-distance comfort. This allows you to get your bars higher than you can on a
> smaller frame, which gives more comfort on longer rides.
>
> I used to go with the smallest frame I could reasonably fit on, based on advice from local shops
> -- but after talking with the folks at Rivendell,
I
> ordered a randonneur bike from them and went with a much taller frame (and less clearance) than
> what I've been told for a long time. I am more comfortable on this bike than I could ever have
> imagined.
>
> This person's frame, with just less than an inch of standover, is probably just right for him.
>
> "Bruce" <bfrech.SPAMDELETE@spam.erols.com> wrote in message news:bijrd9$rko$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > Unless you are very short (less then 5 foot) there is no reason to have
> less
> > than 1" of clearance on a custom frame. Stems can point up, top tubes
can
> > slope, seat posts can be long and extended.
> >
> > So if your current custom frame design has this, then perhaps it was designed for someone's
> > ideal and not yours. Didn't the builder ask you
> how
> > much clearance you wanted?
> >
> > -Bruce
> >
> > "Gary Jacobson" <gjacobson-remove-this-bit-@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:zBd3b.19933$lk1.10857@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > > Just took delivery of a custom randonneur frame. There is maybe just
shy
> > > inch of an inch of standover in the middle of the top tube which
slopes
> > > gently. The standover seems tight to me. Is this acceptable? I am used to frames with a lot
> > > more standover so I am not sure I am on
> > firm
> > > ground if I assert that there is a problem. Sort of difficult to determine where my anatomy
> > > begins and ends down
> > there.
> > > I sort of pull everything forward to get that shy inch. In real life
the
> > lay
> > > of the anatomy would be different. Anxiously awaiting opinions. Thanks.
> > >
> > > Gary Jacobson Rosendale, NY
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Sounds like it's about right. There's a few pages on bike fit and standover. Check out
http://www.rivendellbicycles.com/

Gary Jacobson wrote:

> Just took delivery of a custom randonneur frame. There is maybe just shy inch of an inch of
> standover in the middle of the top tube which slopes gently. The standover seems tight to me. Is
> this acceptable? I am used to frames with a lot more standover so I am not sure I am on
firm
> ground if I assert that there is a problem. Sort of difficult to determine where my anatomy begins
> and ends down
there.
> I sort of pull everything forward to get that shy inch. In real life the
lay
> of the anatomy would be different. Anxiously awaiting opinions. Thanks.
>
> Gary Jacobson Rosendale, NY

--
Mark Wolfe http://www.wolfenet.org gpg fingerprint = 42B6 EFEB 5414 AA18 01B7 64AC EF46 F7E6 82F6
8C71 <ua> The dumb joke of the day is: "Call Microsoft. When the operator answers, "Microsoft, may I
help you?" respond: "I can't understand you. You're breaking up."

When they're fitting the bike, they're fitting it for you riding it, not for standing over it.
It sounds like they got it right, and it's probably going to be real comfortable for you in the
long haul.

Gary Jacobson wrote:

>
> "Bruce" <bfrech.SPAMDELETE@spam.erols.com> wrote in message news:bijrd9$rko$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
>> Unless you are very short (less then 5 foot) there is no reason to have
> less
>> than 1" of clearance on a custom frame. Stems can point up, top tubes
can
>> slope, seat posts can be long and extended.
>>
>> So if your current custom frame design has this, then perhaps it was designed for someone's ideal
>> and not yours. Didn't the builder ask you
> how
>> much clearance you wanted?
>
> Yes, in the process of arranging for this frame I shared my concern about having enough standover
> after reviewing the diagram plans.
>
> I was told that there'd be "plenty."
>
> I'm happy with "adequate" and it seems, according to most input, that is what I have.
>
> Gary

--
Mark Wolfe http://www.wolfenet.org gpg fingerprint = 42B6 EFEB 5414 AA18 01B7 64AC EF46 F7E6 82F6
8C71 In accord to UNIX philosophy, PERL gives you enough rope to hang yourself. (Larry Wall, Randal
Schwartz: Programming Perl (aka the Camel Book))

To the contrary of "no reason...":

My reasons for desiring a frame with 1 inch or less, even on my custom Serrota CSI (why did sell
that bike!?).

-I prefer down tube shifters on some bikes, and the higher top tube allows better ergonomics when
reaching for the levers. Smaller frames make me turn my wrist in to get the levers. Downtube
lever double shifting (with one hand, both levers) is awkward with frames fitted to the modern
trend towards smaller frames. The top tube/downtube/headtube juction is too cramped for my
likings on the smaller frames that are all the rage now. Of course, such smaller, modern frames
usually don't have downtube braze-ons for shifters anymore (grumbe grumble).

-I like being able to squeeze the top tube bewteen my knees when riding without hands,
descending, and aero tucking on descents. Also like the feeling of being able to lay my knee
against the top tube in some cornering situations as it makes me more subconsciously aware of my
position on the bike, I suppose. Top tube is too low for these things on some smaller frames or
frames with a sloped top tube.

-High top tube allows more room for a frame pump without crowding the downtube shifters.

-On some bikes, I prefer the more traditional look of a horizontal(not positive rise)stem and
don't like the look of small frames with a ton of seatpost exposed.

I think all of the old fitting rules, equations, and advice from the shop employees are OK for a
first frame, but could safely be thrown aside after a cyclist has bought his or second (or fourth,
or fifth..) frame, and can better make his or her own decisions.

Pat Smith

"Bruce" <bfrech.SPAMDELETE@spam.erols.com> wrote in message news:<bijrd9$rko$1@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> Unless you are very short (less then 5 foot) there is no reason to have less than 1" of clearance
> on a custom frame. Stems can point up, top tubes can slope, seat posts can be long and extended.
>
> So if your current custom frame design has this, then perhaps it was designed for someone's ideal
> and not yours. Didn't the builder ask you how much clearance you wanted?
>
> -Bruce

So, what sort of argument does Rivendell use to justify more material ( a larger frame) when the
only thing your body notices is the three points of contact - saddle, pedals, handlebars?

You could use any shape frame, and have the 3 points positoned the same and your body would say the
fit is right. For example when I ordered a custom frame I requested a lower BB, a slacker seat
angle. But I then positioned the saddle and bars in the same vertical and horizontal positions
relative to the BB and the bike feels the same as my old bike. OK, the lower BB might be different
when tossing the bike while standing but it's so little different I don't notice it.

Is there something other than fit that they propose is better with larger frames? Does it handle
differently? Is it stiffer or more flexible? If so in what direction?

-Bruce

"Kyle Brooks" <kyle-chrisbrooks@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5mw3b.16207$jY2.12285@newsread1....earthlink.net...
> The trend lately has been to have more clearance because the racing set
has
> been going with the "smaller is better" philosophy and compact geometry,
but
> 3/4-in. is actually fine -- particulary in a randonneur type of bike which is really supposed to
> be built for long-distance comfort. This allows you to get your bars higher than you can on a
> smaller frame, which gives more comfort on longer rides.
>
> I used to go with the smallest frame I could reasonably fit on, based on advice from local shops
> -- but after talking with the folks at Rivendell,
I
> ordered a randonneur bike from them and went with a much taller frame (and less clearance) than
> what I've been told for a long time. I am more comfortable on this bike than I could ever have
> imagined.
>
> This person's frame, with just less than an inch of standover, is probably just right for him.
>
> "Bruce" <bfrech.SPAMDELETE@spam.erols.com> wrote in message news:bijrd9$rko$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > Unless you are very short (less then 5 foot) there is no reason to have
> less
> > than 1" of clearance on a custom frame. Stems can point up, top tubes
can
> > slope, seat posts can be long and extended.
> >
> > So if your current custom frame design has this, then perhaps it was designed for someone's
> > ideal and not yours. Didn't the builder ask you
> how
> > much clearance you wanted?
> >
> > -Bruce
> >
> > "Gary Jacobson" <gjacobson-remove-this-bit-@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:zBd3b.19933$lk1.10857@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > > Just took delivery of a custom randonneur frame. There is maybe just
shy
> > > inch of an inch of standover in the middle of the top tube which
slopes
> > > gently. The standover seems tight to me. Is this acceptable? I am used to frames with a lot
> > > more standover so I am not sure I am on
> > firm
> > > ground if I assert that there is a problem. Sort of difficult to determine where my anatomy
> > > begins and ends down
> > there.
> > > I sort of pull everything forward to get that shy inch. In real life
the
> > lay
> > > of the anatomy would be different. Anxiously awaiting opinions. Thanks.
> > >
> > > Gary Jacobson Rosendale, NY
> > >
> > >
> >
>