![]() |
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
|
|||||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#76 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 12
|
I ride a 53 c-c Lemond (54.5 toptube) and a 56 c-t colnago (55ttube).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#77 |
|
Registered User
|
I'm 6'2 and ridden several different makes and different sizes in each. Trek i fit in a 57. Ridden a 60cm Lemond Zurich and felt great. It's gonna vary. That said, you bike DOES sound small.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#78 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 803
|
Quote:
6'0" tall 31-32 inseam but long torso and arms. I was on a 56 frame, but felt that the top tube (56 cm) was too short even with a 130 stem. I just bought a 57 cm frame (56.5 top tube) and the larger frame allows me to lower the bar height for a more stretched out and comfy position. The early impression on the 57 (85 miles so far) is that it's a perfect fit. It's important to note that there are more factors to an ideal fit than seat tube length. Lance Armstrong is 5'10" and he rides a 58 cm Trek, while Alessandro Petacchi is 6'1" and he rides a 54 cm Pinarello (silly long 58.5 top tube though). You have to try different brands to find the one with the most suitable geometry. Then tweak it with the ideal seat position and stem height/length. ![]() Last edited by PeterF : 06-12.-2004 at 01:59 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#79 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: east coast australia
Posts: 1,327
|
Quote:
Its time you went metric - 180cm 56cm. ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#80 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1
|
PBH = 88.5
Height = 6'0 Frame = 62CM Current bike 58CM - too small |
|
|
|
|
|
#81 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: stockholm, sweden
Posts: 10
|
187 cm (6'2'')
inseam ~93 cm (~36.5'') in normal underwear not padded cyclingshorts. 60 cm c-t Trek 1400 frame The 63 cm frame would perhaps be a better fit but there was a sale and 60 was the biggest they had. The seatpost is far out although not all the way to the max line. But the reach is fine and the bar height is good to. A 63 cm frame wouldn't show as much post but then I'd probably need a 2 cm shorter stem. |
|
|
|
|
|
#82 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Charlotte, North Carolina
Posts: 556
|
Height: 72 Inches (6 feet)
Frame Size: 63 CM, the biggest size a 1500 comes in. ![]()
__________________
Ciocc 7005 with Colnago Carbon Fork and Ultegra 10 |
|
|
|
|
|
#83 |
|
Registered User
|
69" 52.7 cm(mtb)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#84 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,086
|
193cm (inches? pah!!) inseam 93cm frame 58.5cm (compact geometry)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#85 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 32
|
6'2" or 74"
Kestrel is 60cm frame Litespeed is 61cm frame |
|
|
|
|
|
#86 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 58
|
Quote:
Don't sweat it I'm 5'5" as well. ![]() 52cm 29.7" inseam |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#87 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 189
|
5'10" and I ride a Trek 1200 58 cm. Perfect fit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#88 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 24
|
Quote:
I'm 5'10" with somewhat short legs. Rivendell Romulus and Atlantis both 61cm, a little big Fuji Team 58cm, perfect!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#89 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 21
|
Quote:
68.5 inches 54cm frame |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#90 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10
|
6' 3" and a 60cm frame
|
|
|
|