Frame sizing question: Go a size up or a size down?

[kwalters]

Theoretical question: A frame builder makes frames
in even sizes; you are interested in a 60cm or a 62cm.
After studying the respective geometries and comparing
them with what you have ridden in the past, you decide
a 61cm would be best. However, builder doesn't offer a
61 and you can't afford a custom build (don't even want
to discuss it). Would you go a size up or a size down?

(And, to the pundits who would say: "Ride them both" you
have to say" "Impossible to do in this town".)

So, who would go with 62cm & who with 60? & why?

Thanks. Ken

 

[Bill Sornson]

kwalters wrote:
> Theoretical question: A frame builder makes frames
> in even sizes; you are interested in a 60cm or a 62cm.
> After studying the respective geometries and comparing
> them with what you have ridden in the past, you decide
> a 61cm would be best. However, builder doesn't offer a
> 61 and you can't afford a custom build (don't even want
> to discuss it). Would you go a size up or a size down?
>
> (And, to the pundits who would say: "Ride them both" you
> have to say" "Impossible to do in this town".)
>
> So, who would go with 62cm & who with 60? & why?
>
> Thanks. Ken

Why are you married to this make of bike?

 

[landotter]

kwalters wrote:
> Theoretical question: A frame builder makes frames
> in even sizes; you are interested in a 60cm or a 62cm.
> After studying the respective geometries and comparing
> them with what you have ridden in the past, you decide
> a 61cm would be best. However, builder doesn't offer a
> 61 and you can't afford a custom build (don't even want
> to discuss it). Would you go a size up or a size down?
>
> (And, to the pundits who would say: "Ride them both" you
> have to say" "Impossible to do in this town".)
>
> So, who would go with 62cm & who with 60? & why?
>
> Thanks. Ken

The red one, duh.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

kwalters wrote:
> Theoretical question: A frame builder makes frames
> in even sizes; you are interested in a 60cm or a 62cm.
> After studying the respective geometries and comparing
> them with what you have ridden in the past, you decide
> a 61cm would be best. However, builder doesn't offer a
> 61 and you can't afford a custom build (don't even want
> to discuss it). Would you go a size up or a size down?
>
> (And, to the pundits who would say: "Ride them both" you
> have to say" "Impossible to do in this town".)
>
> So, who would go with 62cm & who with 60? & why?
>
> Thanks. Ken

Regarding "what you have ridden in the past", have you arrived at an
"ideal" top tube length? Go with whichever of your two choices (60 v
62) comes closest to that dimension. If neither comes close, look
elsewhere.

 

[Art Harris]

kwalters wrote:
> Theoretical question: A frame builder makes frames
> in even sizes; you are interested in a 60cm or a 62cm.
> After studying the respective geometries and comparing
> them with what you have ridden in the past, you decide
> a 61cm would be best. However, builder doesn't offer a
> 61 and you can't afford a custom build (don't even want
> to discuss it). Would you go a size up or a size down?
>
> (And, to the pundits who would say: "Ride them both" you
> have to say" "Impossible to do in this town".)
>
> So, who would go with 62cm & who with 60? & why?

Be aware that "frame size" a.k.a. seat tube length, is not that
critical, and that there are at least three ways of specifying seat
tube length.

Personally, I like a large frame, so I would round up as long as I
could straddle the bike (and as long as all the other parameters were
acceptable). I'd be more concerned with having adequate tire
clearance, generous wheelbase, and appropriate top tube length and
trail.

I own both 62 cm and 63 cm (center-to-center) frames and prefer the 63
cm only because it's easier to get the bars higher (still 2-3/4" below
the saddle) and because that bike has better tire clearance (not
related to frame size).

If you can't decide between the 60 cm and 62 cm frame, base your choice
on top tube length.

BTW, the current fad is to ride a smaller frame with a long seat post
and rising stem.

Art Harris

 

[[email protected]]

kwalters wrote:
> Theoretical question: A frame builder makes frames
> in even sizes; you are interested in a 60cm or a 62cm.
> After studying the respective geometries and comparing
> them with what you have ridden in the past, you decide
> a 61cm would be best. However, builder doesn't offer a
> 61 and you can't afford a custom build (don't even want
> to discuss it). Would you go a size up or a size down?
>
> (And, to the pundits who would say: "Ride them both" you
> have to say" "Impossible to do in this town".)
>
> So, who would go with 62cm & who with 60? & why?
>
> Thanks. Ken

Since no one else wants to give a constructive answer. I would pick
the larger of the two if it is truely the difference between a 60 and
62 cm frame. Assuming top tube is 58 cm on the 60 and 59 cm on the 62.
And you want a 58.5 cm top tube. I've had too small bikes in the past
and could not get them to fit right. I've had luck getting too large
bikes to fit well. If the difference is as small as described above,
then you may never even notice the difference in the frame once you are
riding it.

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> Theoretical question: A frame builder makes frames
> in even sizes; you are interested in a 60cm or a 62cm.

Are the frames measured center-to-center or center-to-top? And how tall are
you? If it's a center-to-top measurement, and you're 6'2, chances are likely
that you'll feel more comfortable on the taller bike. But this is a
difficult (OK, impossible) thing to figure out without having more
information (your dimensions & the bike's dimensions). All I can go by are
generalities based on overall height and frame size, based upon our
customers.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"kwalters" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Theoretical question: A frame builder makes frames
> in even sizes; you are interested in a 60cm or a 62cm.
> After studying the respective geometries and comparing
> them with what you have ridden in the past, you decide
> a 61cm would be best. However, builder doesn't offer a
> 61 and you can't afford a custom build (don't even want
> to discuss it). Would you go a size up or a size down?
>
> (And, to the pundits who would say: "Ride them both" you
> have to say" "Impossible to do in this town".)
>
> So, who would go with 62cm & who with 60? & why?
>
> Thanks. Ken
>

 

[bill]

kwalters wrote:
> Theoretical question: A frame builder makes frames
> in even sizes; you are interested in a 60cm or a 62cm.
> After studying the respective geometries and comparing
> them with what you have ridden in the past, you decide
> a 61cm would be best. However, builder doesn't offer a
> 61 and you can't afford a custom build (don't even want
> to discuss it). Would you go a size up or a size down?
>
> (And, to the pundits who would say: "Ride them both" you
> have to say" "Impossible to do in this town".)
>
> So, who would go with 62cm & who with 60? & why?
>
> Thanks. Ken

For seatpost exposure 3/8" doesn't really matter that much--that's the
difference between 61 and 62.

Pick the frame that fits best out of the two. Maybe you need the 62
because oyu have a long torso. Maybe you'd rather have the 60 becasue
you have a short torso. (Bigger frames tend to have longer top tubes).

So look at the fit aspects other than seatpost.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

[email protected] wrote:
> kwalters wrote:
> > Theoretical question: A frame builder makes frames
> > in even sizes; you are interested in a 60cm or a 62cm.
> > After studying the respective geometries and comparing
> > them with what you have ridden in the past, you decide
> > a 61cm would be best. However, builder doesn't offer a
> > 61 and you can't afford a custom build (don't even want
> > to discuss it). Would you go a size up or a size down?
> >
> > (And, to the pundits who would say: "Ride them both" you
> > have to say" "Impossible to do in this town".)
> >
> > So, who would go with 62cm & who with 60? & why?
> >
> > Thanks. Ken
>
> Since no one else wants to give a constructive answer.

There's nothing quite like the stench of arrogance in the afternoon!

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

kwalters wrote:
> Theoretical question: A frame builder makes frames
> in even sizes; you are interested in a 60cm or a 62cm.
> After studying the respective geometries and comparing
> them with what you have ridden in the past, you decide
> a 61cm would be best. However, builder doesn't offer a
> 61 and you can't afford a custom build (don't even want
> to discuss it). Would you go a size up or a size down?
>
> (And, to the pundits who would say: "Ride them both" you
> have to say" "Impossible to do in this town".)
>
> So, who would go with 62cm & who with 60? & why?
>
> Thanks. Ken

SAME seat tube angle or different?? Differences in top tube length??

Sizing that measures ONLY seat tube length is only about 10%(or less)
of the equation.

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

[email protected] wrote:
> kwalters wrote:
> > Theoretical question: A frame builder makes frames
> > in even sizes; you are interested in a 60cm or a 62cm.
> > After studying the respective geometries and comparing
> > them with what you have ridden in the past, you decide
> > a 61cm would be best. However, builder doesn't offer a
> > 61 and you can't afford a custom build (don't even want
> > to discuss it). Would you go a size up or a size down?
> >
> > (And, to the pundits who would say: "Ride them both" you
> > have to say" "Impossible to do in this town".)
> >
> > So, who would go with 62cm & who with 60? & why?
> >
> > Thanks. Ken
>
> Since no one else wants to give a constructive answer.

??? All three responses above are spot on, IMO...


I would pick
> the larger of the two if it is truely the difference between a 60 and
> 62 cm frame. Assuming top tube is 58 cm on the 60 and 59 cm on the 62.
> And you want a 58.5 cm top tube. I've had too small bikes in the past
> and could not get them to fit right. I've had luck getting too large
> bikes to fit well. If the difference is as small as described above,
> then you may never even notice the difference in the frame once you are
> riding it.

 

[[email protected]]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > kwalters wrote:
> > > Theoretical question: A frame builder makes frames
> > > in even sizes; you are interested in a 60cm or a 62cm.
> > > After studying the respective geometries and comparing
> > > them with what you have ridden in the past, you decide
> > > a 61cm would be best. However, builder doesn't offer a
> > > 61 and you can't afford a custom build (don't even want
> > > to discuss it). Would you go a size up or a size down?
> > >
> > > (And, to the pundits who would say: "Ride them both" you
> > > have to say" "Impossible to do in this town".)
> > >
> > > So, who would go with 62cm & who with 60? & why?
> > >
> > > Thanks. Ken
> >
> > Since no one else wants to give a constructive answer.
>
> ??? All three responses above are spot on, IMO...

All of the responses are internet bicyclists who obviously have never
ridden a bike in their lives. What would these internet bicyclists say
to someone 20 years ago who wanted to buy a bike? Frames were only
commonly available in 19", 21", 23", 25" sizes. 5 cm differences.
These interent bicyclists would tell the person to not ride a bike
because it does not fit. What a joke. Long before these interent
bicyclists ever saw a bike people were riding bikes quite happily.
Seemingly ill fitting bikes based upon what these interent bicyclists
say about frame fit.


>
>
> I would pick
> > the larger of the two if it is truely the difference between a 60 and
> > 62 cm frame. Assuming top tube is 58 cm on the 60 and 59 cm on the 62.
> > And you want a 58.5 cm top tube. I've had too small bikes in the past
> > and could not get them to fit right. I've had luck getting too large
> > bikes to fit well. If the difference is as small as described above,
> > then you may never even notice the difference in the frame once you are
> > riding it.

 

[Bill S]

kwalters wrote:
> Theoretical question: A frame builder makes frames
> in even sizes; you are interested in a 60cm or a 62cm.
> After studying the respective geometries and comparing
> them with what you have ridden in the past, you decide
> a 61cm would be best. However, builder doesn't offer a
> 61 and you can't afford a custom build (don't even want
> to discuss it). Would you go a size up or a size down?
>
> (And, to the pundits who would say: "Ride them both" you
> have to say" "Impossible to do in this town".)
>
> So, who would go with 62cm & who with 60? & why?
>
> Thanks. Ken
>

So they are both within 1/2 inch of your "optimum size". I
bet you couldn't tell the difference in a blind test.

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> All of the responses are internet bicyclists who obviously have never
> ridden a bike in their lives. What would these internet bicyclists say
> to someone 20 years ago who wanted to buy a bike? Frames were only
> commonly available in 19", 21", 23", 25" sizes. 5 cm differences.
> These interent bicyclists would tell the person to not ride a bike
> because it does not fit. What a joke. Long before these interent
> bicyclists ever saw a bike people were riding bikes quite happily.
> Seemingly ill fitting bikes based upon what these interent bicyclists
> say about frame fit.

So what are the qualifications to be a "real" cyclist vs an "internet
bicyclist?" Does one get grandfathered in if you were riding a bike prior to
the Internet's (or even Arpanet) existence? Or does posting here
automatically disqualify?

But regarding bike sizing and what was available 20 years ago, that falls
sqaurely into the timeframe when some of the Italian makers were delivering
bikes routinely in sizes that incremented by just one centimeter. Stems
incremented in 1/2cm. Those were hardly the good-old-days when men were men
and rode anything that was handed to them and didn't complain.

If a bike doesn't fit someone, they're much less likely to enjoy riding.
Might not matter to some "tough guys" who don't know any better and think
it's supposed to hurt. But a lot of people are going to simply find
something else to do if riding a bike is less than it could be. That's not
to say people don't go overboard, and it's quite likely the case that a bike
that comes in 17, 19, 21, 23 & 25" sizing can be made to fit most people who
come through the door.

Getting properly fit isn't about choosing a bike that comes in 43 sizes. It
might be about figuring out how to make something that's pretty close fit
like a glove. It might be about recognizing that someone is, in fact, a bit
off the charts and needs a different model that might better fit them.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> > kwalters wrote:
>> > > Theoretical question: A frame builder makes frames
>> > > in even sizes; you are interested in a 60cm or a 62cm.
>> > > After studying the respective geometries and comparing
>> > > them with what you have ridden in the past, you decide
>> > > a 61cm would be best. However, builder doesn't offer a
>> > > 61 and you can't afford a custom build (don't even want
>> > > to discuss it). Would you go a size up or a size down?
>> > >
>> > > (And, to the pundits who would say: "Ride them both" you
>> > > have to say" "Impossible to do in this town".)
>> > >
>> > > So, who would go with 62cm & who with 60? & why?
>> > >
>> > > Thanks. Ken
>> >
>> > Since no one else wants to give a constructive answer.
>>
>> ??? All three responses above are spot on, IMO...
>
> All of the responses are internet bicyclists who obviously have never
> ridden a bike in their lives. What would these internet bicyclists say
> to someone 20 years ago who wanted to buy a bike? Frames were only
> commonly available in 19", 21", 23", 25" sizes. 5 cm differences.
> These interent bicyclists would tell the person to not ride a bike
> because it does not fit. What a joke. Long before these interent
> bicyclists ever saw a bike people were riding bikes quite happily.
> Seemingly ill fitting bikes based upon what these interent bicyclists
> say about frame fit.
>
>
>>
>>
>> I would pick
>> > the larger of the two if it is truely the difference between a 60 and
>> > 62 cm frame. Assuming top tube is 58 cm on the 60 and 59 cm on the 62.
>> > And you want a 58.5 cm top tube. I've had too small bikes in the past
>> > and could not get them to fit right. I've had luck getting too large
>> > bikes to fit well. If the difference is as small as described above,
>> > then you may never even notice the difference in the frame once you are
>> > riding it.
>

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
kwalters <[email protected]> wrote:

> Theoretical question: A frame builder makes frames in even sizes; you
> are interested in a 60cm or a 62cm. After studying the respective
> geometries and comparing them with what you have ridden in the past,
> you decide a 61cm would be best. However, builder doesn't offer a 61
> and you can't afford a custom build (don't even want to discuss it).
> Would you go a size up or a size down?
>
> (And, to the pundits who would say: "Ride them both" you have to say"
> "Impossible to do in this town".)
>
> So, who would go with 62cm & who with 60? & why?

Is this an "all other things being equal" situation? I would tend
towards the 62 cm myself. The reasons are that I don't race anymore,
and thus an aerodynamic position is less important to me than a
comfortable position on an all-day bike ride. On a 200K or longer ride,
the comfortable rider is probably the faster rider.

 

[Chris Nelson]

kwalters wrote:
> Theoretical question: A frame builder makes frames
> in even sizes; you are interested in a 60cm or a 62cm.
> After studying the respective geometries and comparing
> them with what you have ridden in the past, you decide
> a 61cm would be best. However, builder doesn't offer a
> 61 and you can't afford a custom build (don't even want
> to discuss it). Would you go a size up or a size down?
>
> (And, to the pundits who would say: "Ride them both" you
> have to say" "Impossible to do in this town".)
>
> So, who would go with 62cm & who with 60? & why?
>
> Thanks. Ken

I'm a round downer. I prefer a small cockpit and like to hunker down
when I ride to cheat the wind. If you like to sit more upright and more
stretched out then round up.

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> kwalters wrote:
>>>> Theoretical question: A frame builder makes frames
>>>> in even sizes; you are interested in a 60cm or a 62cm.
>>>> After studying the respective geometries and comparing
>>>> them with what you have ridden in the past, you decide
>>>> a 61cm would be best. However, builder doesn't offer a
>>>> 61 and you can't afford a custom build (don't even want
>>>> to discuss it). Would you go a size up or a size down?
>>>>
>>>> (And, to the pundits who would say: "Ride them both" you
>>>> have to say" "Impossible to do in this town".)
>>>>
>>>> So, who would go with 62cm & who with 60? & why?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks. Ken
>>>
>>> Since no one else wants to give a constructive answer.
>>
>> ??? All three responses above are spot on, IMO...
>
> All of the responses are internet bicyclists who obviously have never
> ridden a bike in their lives. What would these internet bicyclists
> say to someone 20 years ago who wanted to buy a bike? Frames were
> only commonly available in 19", 21", 23", 25" sizes. 5 cm
> differences. These interent bicyclists would tell the person to not
> ride a bike because it does not fit. What a joke. Long before these
> interent bicyclists ever saw a bike people were riding bikes quite
> happily. Seemingly ill fitting bikes based upon what these interent
> bicyclists say about frame fit.

Hmmm. I asked why the OP was restricting his choice to one make when he's
between sizes. (And I could have sworn I've been riding bikes quite a bit
in my life -- especially the last 10-11 years -- but thanks for setting me
straight.)

Bill "I'm guessing you're not just an internet putz?" S.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:38:50 -0600, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> kwalters <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Theoretical question: A frame builder makes frames in even sizes; you
>> are interested in a 60cm or a 62cm. After studying the respective
>> geometries and comparing them with what you have ridden in the past,
>> you decide a 61cm would be best. However, builder doesn't offer a 61
>> and you can't afford a custom build (don't even want to discuss it).
>> Would you go a size up or a size down?
>>
>> (And, to the pundits who would say: "Ride them both" you have to say"
>> "Impossible to do in this town".)
>>
>> So, who would go with 62cm & who with 60? & why?
>
>Is this an "all other things being equal" situation? I would tend
>towards the 62 cm myself. The reasons are that I don't race anymore,
>and thus an aerodynamic position is less important to me than a
>comfortable position on an all-day bike ride. On a 200K or longer ride,
>the comfortable rider is probably the faster rider.

If all else is equal, we can assume the rider can achieve the proper
position either way.

If that's the case, I'd pick the frame by which allows more normal
sizing/positioning of the seatpost and stem. The rider shouldn't need
the stem extended very high out of the frame, and also at that size
should have a long stem -- at least a 12 and perhaps as much as a 14.
And the seatpost should be extented to be about the length of the
headtube. Plus the seat should be in the middle of the post, not
jammed all the way back and not all the way forward (assuming a
typical post with the clamp having some setback).

I'd pick whichever frame allows the fit the rider wants with the stem
and seatpost set up that way.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[* * Chas]

"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:L%[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> kwalters wrote:
> >>>> Theoretical question: A frame builder makes frames
> >>>> in even sizes; you are interested in a 60cm or a 62cm.
> >>>> After studying the respective geometries and comparing
> >>>> them with what you have ridden in the past, you decide
> >>>> a 61cm would be best. However, builder doesn't offer a
> >>>> 61 and you can't afford a custom build (don't even want
> >>>> to discuss it). Would you go a size up or a size down?
> >>>>
> >>>> (And, to the pundits who would say: "Ride them both" you
> >>>> have to say" "Impossible to do in this town".)
> >>>>
> >>>> So, who would go with 62cm & who with 60? & why?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks. Ken
> >>>
> >>> Since no one else wants to give a constructive answer.
> >>
> >> ??? All three responses above are spot on, IMO...
> >
> > All of the responses are internet bicyclists who obviously have never
> > ridden a bike in their lives. What would these internet bicyclists
> > say to someone 20 years ago who wanted to buy a bike? Frames were
> > only commonly available in 19", 21", 23", 25" sizes. 5 cm
> > differences. These interent bicyclists would tell the person to not
> > ride a bike because it does not fit. What a joke. Long before these
> > interent bicyclists ever saw a bike people were riding bikes quite
> > happily. Seemingly ill fitting bikes based upon what these interent
> > bicyclists say about frame fit.
>
> Hmmm. I asked why the OP was restricting his choice to one make when
he's
> between sizes. (And I could have sworn I've been riding bikes quite a
bit
> in my life -- especially the last 10-11 years -- but thanks for setting
me
> straight.)
>
> Bill "I'm guessing you're not just an internet putz?" S.
>
>

Some of us were riding bikes when Russell was "pissin in pampers"...

Chas.

 

[jim beam]

kwalters wrote:
> Theoretical question: A frame builder makes frames
> in even sizes; you are interested in a 60cm or a 62cm.
> After studying the respective geometries and comparing
> them with what you have ridden in the past, you decide
> a 61cm would be best. However, builder doesn't offer a
> 61 and you can't afford a custom build (don't even want
> to discuss it). Would you go a size up or a size down?
>
> (And, to the pundits who would say: "Ride them both" you
> have to say" "Impossible to do in this town".)
>
> So, who would go with 62cm & who with 60? & why?
>
> Thanks. Ken
>
the correct answer is "the one with the correct top tube length". but
if both are equal, i'd go for the 60. in my experience, big frames tend
to shimmy - smaller frames are less prone. 2cm may not be much, but a
little less spring from a slightly smaller frame can mean the difference
between a frame that's stable and one that isn't.