Frame size query

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Brian, Aug 6, 2004.

  1. Brian

    Brian Guest

    Since I'm still shopping around for my hardtail I thought I'd try another
    local bike shop.

    He advised that I go for a 19" frame.

    However this conflicts with what I was advised in another shop who advised
    a 22" frame.

    I'm 6'2, 34" inside leg measured from crotch to floor.

    Kind of unsure what size of bike to go for now.

    thanks in advance

    --
    Brian
     
    Tags:


  2. "Brian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Since I'm still shopping around for my hardtail I thought I'd try another
    > local bike shop.
    >
    > He advised that I go for a 19" frame.
    >
    > However this conflicts with what I was advised in another shop who advised
    > a 22" frame.
    >
    > I'm 6'2, 34" inside leg measured from crotch to floor.
    >
    > Kind of unsure what size of bike to go for now.
    >
    > thanks in advance
    >
    > --
    > Brian


    Manufacturers often measure frames differently so make sure you are
    comparing like with like, common sizing is based on Centre (of Bottom
    Bracket) to Top (of seat tube) or centre to centre (of top tube) but you can
    also find some people who give measurements for centre to top of top tube,
    which is probably the best in terms of indication of nad clearance.

    If this is for an MTB (hardtail?) then 22" is too big, you'd have to be
    gynormous. I would hazard a guess you would be suited to a 20.5" frame
    (measured centre-top) but make sure you check the top tube length as well,
    some large frames can have v.long top tubes, if you're disproportionately
    long in the leg you may find some are too stretched out.

    Steve.
     
  3. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Brian wrote:
    > Since I'm still shopping around for my hardtail I thought I'd try another
    > local bike shop.
    >
    > He advised that I go for a 19" frame.
    >
    > However this conflicts with what I was advised in another shop who advised
    > a 22" frame.


    If it's a compact style frame with a sloping top tube (and it very
    probably is if it's a current hardtail MTB) then it ceases to be a very
    useful measure, unfortunately, as some compacts are more compact than
    others. Another side of this is that the two bits of advice may be
    using completely different assumptions about the effective meaning of
    "frame size", so they may not even be in conflict...

    Moral of the story is you need to sit on (and preferably ride on) to
    decide what will suit you best in any given model.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
    Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
    net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  4. Brian

    Brian Guest

    "spademan o---[\) *"
    <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:


    >
    > If this is for an MTB (hardtail?) then 22" is too big, you'd have to
    > be gynormous. I would hazard a guess you would be suited to a 20.5"
    > frame (measured centre-top) but make sure you check the top tube
    > length as well, some large frames can have v.long top tubes, if you're
    > disproportionately long in the leg you may find some are too stretched


    Well, the first shop I went to he sat me on a 20" frame mbt, asked my
    height and then advised that I need a 22" frame.

    The shop I visited today suggested a 19" frame.

    Not sure what do to - I have no other decent bike shops nearby.

    --
    Brian
     
  5. Arthur Clune

    Arthur Clune Guest

    Brian <[email protected]> wrote:

    : Well, the first shop I went to he sat me on a 20" frame mbt, asked my
    : height and then advised that I need a 22" frame.

    Does seem a little big for a MTB frame, but it depends what you want
    it for.

    Do you want it for technical off-road or for pottering along a canal
    path?

    : The shop I visited today suggested a 19" frame.

    Might be fine. It all depends on the frame. On makes 21" can be anothers 19"

    : Not sure what do to - I have no other decent bike shops nearby.

    Test ride the bikes. Buy the one you like.

    --
    Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
    "Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
    - Paulina Borsook
     
  6. Arthur Clune

    Arthur Clune Guest

    : Brian <[email protected]> wrote:

    : : Not sure what do to - I have no other decent bike shops nearby.

    What makes and models are the two bikes? Given that we could probably
    give you some more sensible advice as to how different in size they
    are.

    Arthur

    --
    Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
    "Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
    - Paulina Borsook
     
  7. Simon Brooke

    Simon Brooke Guest

    in message <[email protected]>, Brian
    ('[email protected]') wrote:

    > Since I'm still shopping around for my hardtail I thought I'd try
    > another local bike shop.
    >
    > He advised that I go for a 19" frame.
    >
    > However this conflicts with what I was advised in another shop who
    > advised a 22" frame.


    Was the 22" bigger or smaller than the 19"? I'm serious. In mountain
    bikes, with sloping top tubes, it is not possible to directly compare
    sizes from one range to another. A bigger bike with a more sloping top
    tube will have a smaller seatpost length, and that's what the 19" and
    22" measures. So they could easily both be right.

    > I'm 6'2, 34" inside leg measured from crotch to floor.
    >
    > Kind of unsure what size of bike to go for now.


    One that fits.

    To establish whether a bike fits, adjust the saddle so that, sitting on
    it, you can get your heel on the pedal with your leg completely
    straight. Now, sitting on the saddle, put your hands on the bars. Do
    they feel a comfortable distance away? If so, the bike fits. If not, it
    doesn't. More or less and with some detail tweaks but that's good
    enough until you're more experienced.

    Ignore inch sizes, they are just confusing you.

    --
    [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    ;; not so much a refugee from reality, more a bogus
    ;; asylum seeker
     
  8. Brian

    Brian Guest

    "Arthur Clune" <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > Brian <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >: Well, the first shop I went to he sat me on a 20" frame mbt, asked my
    >: height and then advised that I need a 22" frame.
    >
    > Does seem a little big for a MTB frame, but it depends what you want
    > it for.
    >
    > Do you want it for technical off-road or for pottering along a canal
    > path?


    Well, I'm planning to use it off-road (but not too serious technical
    stuff), so I would need something with decent clearance?


    >
    >: The shop I visited today suggested a 19" frame.
    >
    > Might be fine. It all depends on the frame. On makes 21" can be
    > anothers 19"
    >
    >: Not sure what do to - I have no other decent bike shops nearby.
    >
    > Test ride the bikes. Buy the one you like.
    >


    Problem is I don't know enough about bikes to know that the bike I
    "like" is actually the best one to buy, hence I'm asking for advice.


    The two bikes I've seen are

    Claud Butler Rock - 22" frame (can't find detailed sizing information
    online)

    Gary Fisher Wahoo - 19.5" frame the sizing for this bike can be seen
    here: http://www.fisherbikes.com/bikes/sizing.asp?
    series=classic&bike=Wahoo


    :-/

    --
    Brian
     
  9. Brian

    Brian Guest

    Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote in news:8hicu1-ir2.ln1
    @gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk:

    > Was the 22" bigger or smaller than the 19"? I'm serious. In mountain
    > bikes, with sloping top tubes, it is not possible to directly compare
    > sizes from one range to another. A bigger bike with a more sloping top
    > tube will have a smaller seatpost length, and that's what the 19" and
    > 22" measures. So they could easily both be right.



    Well, I didn't actually see the 22" bike, or the 19" bike in the shop I
    visited today.

    >
    >> I'm 6'2, 34" inside leg measured from crotch to floor.
    >>
    >> Kind of unsure what size of bike to go for now.

    >
    > One that fits.
    >
    > To establish whether a bike fits, adjust the saddle so that, sitting on
    > it, you can get your heel on the pedal with your leg completely
    > straight. Now, sitting on the saddle, put your hands on the bars. Do
    > they feel a comfortable distance away? If so, the bike fits. If not, it
    > doesn't. More or less and with some detail tweaks but that's good
    > enough until you're more experienced.
    >
    > Ignore inch sizes, they are just confusing you.
    >


    Well, I've got a day off work next Wednesday (then 2 weeks holiday starting
    from next Friday!!) so I'll pop along to my preferred local bike shop and
    have another look at the Claud Butler Rock bike - I'll explain that I'm not
    to sure about the frame size, and see if I can get a 22" frame to try on
    for size.

    regards

    --
    Brian
     
  10. Peter B

    Peter B Guest

    "Brian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Since I'm still shopping around for my hardtail I thought I'd try another
    > local bike shop.
    >
    > He advised that I go for a 19" frame.
    >
    > However this conflicts with what I was advised in another shop who advised
    > a 22" frame.
    >
    > I'm 6'2, 34" inside leg measured from crotch to floor.


    Here we go again.....

    34" minus 12" bottom bracket height (typically, but measure) = 22". Minus AT
    LEAST 3" 'nad clearance = 19".
    22" ? highly dubious as you might find out if having to put your foot on the
    ground in a hurry on something as innocuous as a canal tow path.
    Anyway, the 19" frame will be optimised for an averagely proportioned
    person of your leg length wheras a 22" frame will be optimised for someone
    of average proportions to a 37" inside leg.

    The caveat is that frame measuring methods vary and sloping top tubes make
    assessments difficult so you really need to sit on a few.
    If you have to order a good brand blind then go for a 19", seatposts have
    massive amounts of reserve height adjustment (upward) but of course
    radically altering the stem length (for increased reach) will radically
    alter handling, not neccessarily negatively to your preference.

    Having said that your legs are only 1" longer than mine but your overall
    height is 3" greater but even so 22".......I don't think so! (I ride 18"
    mtbs).

    Regards,
    Pete
     
  11. Peter B

    Peter B Guest

    "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Was the 22" bigger or smaller than the 19"? I'm serious. In mountain
    > bikes, with sloping top tubes, it is not possible to directly compare
    > sizes from one range to another. A bigger bike with a more sloping top
    > tube will have a smaller seatpost length, and that's what the 19" and
    > 22" measures. So they could easily both be right.


    Yes but for practical purposes the better brands base size on a hypothetical
    horizontal top tube to suit convention. And regardless of angle 22" seems
    awfully high.
    But if the OP has a very long torso in relation to his legs he may fit a
    "hypothetical" 22" sloping top tube bike that will give both the correct
    reach and ample 'nad clearance so I basically agree with you.
    As already said he needs to sit on a few at knowledgeable shops, especially
    if he's not of average proportions.

    Pete
     
  12. Brian

    Brian Guest

    "Peter B" <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:


    >
    > Here we go again.....
    >
    > 34" minus 12" bottom bracket height (typically, but measure) = 22".
    > Minus AT LEAST 3" 'nad clearance = 19".
    > 22" ? highly dubious as you might find out if having to put your foot
    > on the ground in a hurry on something as innocuous as a canal tow
    > path. Anyway, the 19" frame will be optimised for an averagely
    > proportioned person of your leg length wheras a 22" frame will be
    > optimised for someone of average proportions to a 37" inside leg.
    >
    > The caveat is that frame measuring methods vary and sloping top tubes
    > make assessments difficult so you really need to sit on a few.
    > If you have to order a good brand blind then go for a 19", seatposts
    > have massive amounts of reserve height adjustment (upward) but of
    > course radically altering the stem length (for increased reach) will
    > radically alter handling, not neccessarily negatively to your
    > preference.
    >
    > Having said that your legs are only 1" longer than mine but your
    > overall height is 3" greater but even so 22".......I don't think so!
    > (I ride 18" mtbs).
    >
    > Regards,
    > Pete
    >
    >


    Thanks for the reply, it's appreciated. I'll be sure to try a few bikes
    when I return to the bike shop on Wednesday. My current bike is a '97
    Towsend Peak ATB with 19" so something around about the same size as that
    should be OK, or a 20" frame.

    Just a shame I'm working this weekend otherwise I'd pop into the shop
    tomorrow...

    thanks again for all the replies.

    I'll sit quietly in the corner now until I get to the bikeshop on
    Wednesday!

    :-D

    --
    Brian
     
Loading...
Loading...