Frame size for my new (1st) road bike

[Earl Lewis]

This summer, after 20 some year layoff I got back into biking with a
23" mountain bike. Now I've started yearning for a road bike. Guy at
the LBS said I needed a 63cm frame. I'm 6'2". Measuring from FLOOR to
my crotch I get 35". (inseam of my pants is 32.5" but plugging this
into the bike formulas comes up waay small).

35" * 2.54 = 88.9cm minus 27 OR 28cm = 62cm or 61cm for a bike frame
size. Specialized only goes to 61cm, Trek skips from 60 to 63cm.

I know you guys will tell me to disregard formulas and see how the
bike 'feels' on a test ride. Trouble with that is that I'm too
inexperienced to judge in a brief around-the-parking lot spin, or even
a 3 hour one for that matter.

Does anyone have any sage advice for me? Would I be more dissatisfied
with a bike that was a shade too small or a shade too big?


Remove no_spam to reply email

 

[gds]

Earl Lewis wrote:
> This summer, after 20 some year layoff I got back into biking with a
> 23" mountain bike. Now I've started yearning for a road bike. Guy at
> the LBS said I needed a 63cm frame. I'm 6'2". Measuring from FLOOR to
> my crotch I get 35". (inseam of my pants is 32.5" but plugging this
> into the bike formulas comes up waay small).
>
> 35" * 2.54 = 88.9cm minus 27 OR 28cm = 62cm or 61cm for a bike frame
> size. Specialized only goes to 61cm, Trek skips from 60 to 63cm.
>
> I know you guys will tell me to disregard formulas and see how the
> bike 'feels' on a test ride. Trouble with that is that I'm too
> inexperienced to judge in a brief around-the-parking lot spin, or even
> a 3 hour one for that matter.
>
> Does anyone have any sage advice for me? Would I be more dissatisfied
> with a bike that was a shade too small or a shade too big?
>
>
> Remove no_spam to reply email\

Step 1) Find a LBS with an experienced bike fitter
Step 2) Trust them

 

[William Marsh]

Hey Earl It probably depends on the bike but I am long legged 36" inseam and
6'1 and am riding a 60 cm cannondale that fits me to a tee. Try riding some
bikes that is what a lfs did with me and they were suprized that the 60
worked out so good. They were trying 56 and it was way too short. Bill
"Earl Lewis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This summer, after 20 some year layoff I got back into biking with a
> 23" mountain bike. Now I've started yearning for a road bike. Guy at
> the LBS said I needed a 63cm frame. I'm 6'2". Measuring from FLOOR to
> my crotch I get 35". (inseam of my pants is 32.5" but plugging this
> into the bike formulas comes up waay small).
>
> 35" * 2.54 = 88.9cm minus 27 OR 28cm = 62cm or 61cm for a bike frame
> size. Specialized only goes to 61cm, Trek skips from 60 to 63cm.
>
> I know you guys will tell me to disregard formulas and see how the
> bike 'feels' on a test ride. Trouble with that is that I'm too
> inexperienced to judge in a brief around-the-parking lot spin, or even
> a 3 hour one for that matter.
>
> Does anyone have any sage advice for me? Would I be more dissatisfied
> with a bike that was a shade too small or a shade too big?
>
>
> Remove no_spam to reply email

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Earl Lewis wrote:
> This summer, after 20 some year layoff I got back into biking with a
> 23" mountain bike. Now I've started yearning for a road bike. Guy at
> the LBS said I needed a 63cm frame. I'm 6'2". Measuring from FLOOR to
> my crotch I get 35". (inseam of my pants is 32.5" but plugging this
> into the bike formulas comes up waay small).
>
> 35" * 2.54 = 88.9cm minus 27 OR 28cm = 62cm or 61cm for a bike frame
> size. Specialized only goes to 61cm, Trek skips from 60 to 63cm.
>
> I know you guys will tell me to disregard formulas and see how the
> bike 'feels' on a test ride. Trouble with that is that I'm too
> inexperienced to judge in a brief around-the-parking lot spin, or even
> a 3 hour one for that matter.
>
> Does anyone have any sage advice for me? Would I be more dissatisfied
> with a bike that was a shade too small or a shade too big?
>
>
>

IME, top tube length is more important than seat tube length. Try to
find a shop offering a good fitting service. Strive for a comfortable
reach to the bars using a stem in the 90 - 110mm range (IMHO). Also, be
sure the bars can be positioned at a height *you* are comfortable with.

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Earl Lewis <[email protected]> writes:
> This summer, after 20 some year layoff I got back into biking with a
> 23" mountain bike. Now I've started yearning for a road bike. Guy at
> the LBS said I needed a 63cm frame. I'm 6'2". Measuring from FLOOR to
> my crotch I get 35". (inseam of my pants is 32.5" but plugging this
> into the bike formulas comes up waay small).
>
> 35" * 2.54 = 88.9cm minus 27 OR 28cm = 62cm or 61cm for a bike frame
> size. Specialized only goes to 61cm, Trek skips from 60 to 63cm.
>
> I know you guys will tell me to disregard formulas and see how the
> bike 'feels' on a test ride. Trouble with that is that I'm too
> inexperienced to judge in a brief around-the-parking lot spin, or even
> a 3 hour one for that matter.
>
> Does anyone have any sage advice for me?

Peter White does:
www.peterwhitecycles.com/fitting.htm

> Would I be more dissatisfied
> with a bike that was a shade too small or a shade too big?

I'd err on the "shade too big" side. I think it's easier
to shrink a cockpit, than to stretch it. But that's a
personal bias on my part -- I don't like my knees getting
too close to the handlebar, and I don't like the handlebar
too close to being over the front axle. If you're transitioning
from the traditional mountain bike short-frame/high-seatpost
thing, the longer & taller frame might feel weird at first.
But you'll settle into it.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca