Help finding the right bike size (approx.)



M

Matt Mencel

Guest
Hello...I've recently (past 6 months) gotten into cycling. This summer I
borrowed a friends old Trek 1200 and rode RAGBRAI for the first time. I'm
now looking to purchase my own bike and am considering the Trek 1500 ...or
something similar in that price range.

I'm just over 6'2" and have measured my inseam at 86-87cm. I've done a
little research online and from the stuff I've read I might fit a frame size
anywhere from 58cm-63cm. I've read of a few individuals who are around 6'0"
using a 58 or 60cm frame so I'm guessing that 60cm or more would probably
fit me best. I'm not looking for the "absolutely perfect" fit, I just want
to be comfortable when I ride. My local bike shop has nothing in that size
range so I'll have to drive an hour or two away to find a shop with bigger
stock if I wanted to test ride one. Are there any individuals reading this
newsgroup that have similar proportions that could offer up the frame size
they are using? That would at least give me some good ideas on what to be
looking for.

Thanks,
Matt
 
D

Darin McGrew

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Matt Mencel <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm just over 6'2" and have measured my inseam at 86-87cm. I've done a
> little research online and from the stuff I've read I might fit a frame size
> anywhere from 58cm-63cm. I've read of a few individuals who are around 6'0"
> using a 58 or 60cm frame so I'm guessing that 60cm or more would probably
> fit me best. I'm not looking for the "absolutely perfect" fit, I just want
> to be comfortable when I ride. My local bike shop has nothing in that size
> range so I'll have to drive an hour or two away to find a shop with bigger
> stock if I wanted to test ride one. Are there any individuals reading this
> newsgroup that have similar proportions that could offer up the frame size
> they are using? That would at least give me some good ideas on what to be
> looking for.


That's about my height and inseam, and I found the standover height of a
60cm (23.5") frame to be a bit "too close for comfort". Yes, I could ride a
bike that size, but I wouldn't be as happy with it. I ended up buying one
with a 56cm (22") frame instead.

But ultimately, it's about what fits you, and what feels comfortable to
you. Find a bike with the same size frame and wheels as the one you're
considering buying and take it for a spin.
--
Darin McGrew, [email protected], http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, [email protected], http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"Shin: a device for finding furniture in the dark." - Steven Wright
 
T

the black rose

Guest
Darin McGrew wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Matt Mencel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I'm just over 6'2" and have measured my inseam at 86-87cm. I've done a
>>little research online and from the stuff I've read I might fit a frame size
>>anywhere from 58cm-63cm. I've read of a few individuals who are around 6'0"
>>using a 58 or 60cm frame so I'm guessing that 60cm or more would probably
>>fit me best. I'm not looking for the "absolutely perfect" fit, I just want
>>to be comfortable when I ride. My local bike shop has nothing in that size
>>range so I'll have to drive an hour or two away to find a shop with bigger
>>stock if I wanted to test ride one. Are there any individuals reading this
>>newsgroup that have similar proportions that could offer up the frame size
>>they are using? That would at least give me some good ideas on what to be
>>looking for.

>
>
> That's about my height and inseam, and I found the standover height of a
> 60cm (23.5") frame to be a bit "too close for comfort". Yes, I could ride a
> bike that size, but I wouldn't be as happy with it. I ended up buying one
> with a 56cm (22") frame instead.
>
> But ultimately, it's about what fits you, and what feels comfortable to
> you. Find a bike with the same size frame and wheels as the one you're
> considering buying and take it for a spin.


Yeah, you just gotta get on them and try them. You might need to drive
that hour to try different size frames, just to be sure of the fit.
It's worth taking the time to do that, because you'll be much less
comfortable on a bike that's the wrong size.

One of my sons rides a 58cm Cannondale -- he's 5'11" and all arms and
legs and not quite finished growing (he's 18). Ya never know.

-km

--
the black rose
proud to be owned by a yorkie
http://community.webshots.com/user/blackrosequilts
 
S

Sarah Clatterbuck

Guest
"Matt Mencel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I'm just over 6'2" and have measured my inseam at 86-87cm. I've done a
> little research online and from the stuff I've read I might fit a frame size
> anywhere from 58cm-63cm.


Hi Matt,

I'm 5'10" and have an 86cm inseam. The standover height is going to be
your limiting factor. Legally, for a shop in the U.S. to sell you a
bike, there must be 1" between the top tube and your crotch. I have
one 58cm (c-t) bike and two 56cm (c-t) bikes. The 58 is the absolute
tallest I can stand over, but I really like the feel of the larger
frame. It gives me more confidence descending. So, if you can find a
60 that you can clear, go for it! But, I suspect you may be stuck with
the 58. I would stand over both if you can.

Sarah
 
G

Glm

Guest
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:32:59 -0500, Matt Mencel <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hello...I've recently (past 6 months) gotten into cycling. This summer I
> borrowed a friends old Trek 1200 and rode RAGBRAI for the first time.
> I'm
> now looking to purchase my own bike and am considering the Trek 1500
> ...or
> something similar in that price range.
>
> I'm just over 6'2" and have measured my inseam at 86-87cm. I've done a
> little research online and from the stuff I've read I might fit a frame
> size
> anywhere from 58cm-63cm. I've read of a few individuals who are around
> 6'0"
> using a 58 or 60cm frame so I'm guessing that 60cm or more would probably
> fit me best. I'm not looking for the "absolutely perfect" fit, I just
> want
> to be comfortable when I ride. My local bike shop has nothing in that
> size
> range so I'll have to drive an hour or two away to find a shop with
> bigger
> stock if I wanted to test ride one. Are there any individuals reading
> this
> newsgroup that have similar proportions that could offer up the frame
> size
> they are using? That would at least give me some good ideas on what to
> be
> looking for.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
>


Surely it depends on the geometry of the frame and the style of your
particular riding? You, likewise, need to consider not just height and
inseam, but also reach and a number of other dimensions. Clearly, there
is no hard and fast rule; onbly guidelines for the 'average' individual.

When I purchased my road bike the shop insisted that I take either a 54cm
or a 56cm machine. I felt that I'd be better off with at least the 56cm
(I'm 5' 11" and my inseam is 33.5" - self-measured, though!), but they
pressed me to buy the 54cm. Their rationale was that I had a weak lower
spine, and therefore needed to keep my abs very tight; reaching too far
forward somewhat undesirable.

I somewhat reluctantly bought the 54cm. However, it's actually fairly
comfortable: after a few days' riding I extended the height of the stem by
a few millimetres (a standard shuttle, I assume) as I was experiencing
pain local to my thenar muscles.

I still feel that the 56cm may have worked as well (the top-tube extends
17mm further), but I am struggling to identify any real issues with this,
the smaller frame.

My point is that hard and fast rules are perhaps less than helpful. The
greatest challenge seems to be finding an LBS that will set the thing up
properly.
 
D

DaveH

Guest
Another data point. I'm 5' 8 1/2" with an 87 cm inseam, or more
accurately (according to Rivendell), and 87 cm pubic bone height.

I have a 58 cm, 1987 Schwinn Super Sport and a 2004, 60 cm Rivendell
Rambouillet. I've got a solid inch stand-over height on the Schwinn
and just enough clearance on the Rambouillet to stand over it
comfortably.

For me, the Rambouillet is the more comfortable bike; but for a given
frame size, I gather that they tend to be smaller than average. I
agree with the philosophy that bigger bikes are more comfortable, but
this is utterly subjective.
Dave

>Hello...I've recently (past 6 months) gotten into cycling. This summer I
>borrowed a friends old Trek 1200 and rode RAGBRAI for the first time. I'm
>now looking to purchase my own bike and am considering the Trek 1500 ...or
>something similar in that price range.
>
>I'm just over 6'2" and have measured my inseam at 86-87cm. I've done a
>little research online and from the stuff I've read I might fit a frame size
>anywhere from 58cm-63cm. I've read of a few individuals who are around 6'0"
>using a 58 or 60cm frame so I'm guessing that 60cm or more would probably
>fit me best. I'm not looking for the "absolutely perfect" fit, I just want
>to be comfortable when I ride. My local bike shop has nothing in that size
>range so I'll have to drive an hour or two away to find a shop with bigger
>stock if I wanted to test ride one. Are there any individuals reading this
>newsgroup that have similar proportions that could offer up the frame size
>they are using? That would at least give me some good ideas on what to be
>looking for.
>
>Thanks,
>Matt
>
 
C

Curtis L. Russell

Guest
On 18 Aug 2004 15:04:21 -0700, [email protected] (Sarah
Clatterbuck) wrote:

>I'm 5'10" and have an 86cm inseam. The standover height is going to be
>your limiting factor. Legally, for a shop in the U.S. to sell you a
>bike, there must be 1" between the top tube and your crotch


Huh? I'm not aware of ANY jurisdictions that have that as a rule and
regulation, and I am more than somewhat more involved in the issue on
private email lists. Certainly it is not a U.S. reg as so far they
aren't micromanaging bike sales with Federal regulations.

People measure inseam differently, just as frame sizes can easily be
off by a centimeter if measured center to center rather than to either
side of the brackets/lugs. I'm between 6'1" and 6'2" and I ride a
center-to-center 58 cm frame almost always. OTOH, I am tall above the
waist and have a relatively short inseam for my height. Probably I
ride a frame more typical for a male a couple of inches shorter.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
M

maxo

Guest
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:32:59 -0500, Matt Mencel wrote:

> I've done a
> little research online and from the stuff I've read I might fit a frame
> size anywhere from 58cm-63cm. I've read of a few individuals who are
> around 6'0" using a 58 or 60cm frame so I'm guessing that 60cm or more
> would probably fit me best.


FWIW, I'm 6'1", and wear 34" Levis...

My current frame is on the verge of being too small--it's a 58 with the
posts all the way out. Now it feels great, so no complaints from me, but
according to my measurements, I could easily ride a 62 according to
"Rivendell" sizing.

Mine is a traditional flat top bar steel frame--a lot of these new bikes
have "compact frames" which can be made to fit a huge range of bodies. I
find most of those frames that I've ridden to be rather brutal in their
rigidity--ride one and judge for yourself. My compact alu Marin city bike
with 37 tires feels like a jackhammer compared to the steel racer with
25s. YMMV.

With a smaller traditional frame, 60cm would be my "perfect" size, the 58
retains the "suppleness" but by being slightly smaller it feels more
responsive in the climbs. I could be absolutely full of it on this
observation btw--it's all so darn subjective. LOL.

I'd err on the side of larger, since bigger frames seem to have a more
"stately" ride imho--it'll take you five minutes of test riding to make up
your own mind. :D


What I find strange is that your bike shop has nothing "in that range"...
 
M

Matt Mencel

Guest
>
>
> What I find strange is that your bike shop has nothing "in that range"...
>


It's a pretty small shop and we don't have a lot of "road" riders around
this area...(rural western Illinois). The University probably provides
quite a few of his customers and I don't suppose they're normally looking
for road bikes. He carries some hybrids, MTBs, and kids bikes mostly. I
think he has three or four road bikes in the shop, one is the women's model
and I believe the other 2-3 are 58cm or less. I'm going back today to look
again though. Don't get me wrong, it's a great shop and he helped me out
quite a bit getting ready for RAGBRAI, it's probably just not economically
viable for him to keep a lot of stock on hand.

Thanks everyone for all the responses.

Matt
 
H

Hijo de la Changa

Guest
"Sarah Clatterbuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> Legally, for a shop in the U.S. to sell you a
> bike, there must be 1" between the top tube and your crotch.


You've got to be kidding. Legally?

Are there government crotch-watchers at every bike shop, or is this a random
search type o' deal?

Guess I'll have to tell the shop where I bought my penny-farthing that
they're flirting with the Law.
 
S

Sarah Clatterbuck

Guest
Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 18 Aug 2004 15:04:21 -0700, [email protected] (Sarah
> Clatterbuck) wrote:
>
> >I'm 5'10" and have an 86cm inseam. The standover height is going to be
> >your limiting factor. Legally, for a shop in the U.S. to sell you a
> >bike, there must be 1" between the top tube and your crotch

>
> Huh? I'm not aware of ANY jurisdictions that have that as a rule and
> regulation, and I am more than somewhat more involved in the issue on
> private email lists. Certainly it is not a U.S. reg as so far they
> aren't micromanaging bike sales with Federal regulations.
>

Curtis,

I first read about this in one of Mike Jacobowsky's posts. But, just
for fun, I found the regulation on the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission's web site:

http://tinyurl.com/5a3pd

Subsection (c) reads as follows:

"(c) The minimum leg-length dimension shall be readily understandable
and shall be based on allowing no less than one inch of clearance
between (1) the top tube of the bicycle and the ground plane and (2)
the
crotch measurement of the rider. A girl's style frame shall be
specified
in the same way using a corresponding boys' model as a basis."

Sarah
 
D

DaveH

Guest
That some bureaucrat felt compelled to put this to paper and sanctify
it in the form of yet more regulation is truly incredible.

On 19 Aug 2004 15:59:39 -0700, [email protected] (Sarah
Clatterbuck) wrote:

>Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> On 18 Aug 2004 15:04:21 -0700, [email protected] (Sarah
>> Clatterbuck) wrote:
>>
>> >I'm 5'10" and have an 86cm inseam. The standover height is going to be
>> >your limiting factor. Legally, for a shop in the U.S. to sell you a
>> >bike, there must be 1" between the top tube and your crotch

>>
>> Huh? I'm not aware of ANY jurisdictions that have that as a rule and
>> regulation, and I am more than somewhat more involved in the issue on
>> private email lists. Certainly it is not a U.S. reg as so far they
>> aren't micromanaging bike sales with Federal regulations.
>>

>Curtis,
>
>I first read about this in one of Mike Jacobowsky's posts. But, just
>for fun, I found the regulation on the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
>Commission's web site:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/5a3pd
>
>Subsection (c) reads as follows:
>
>"(c) The minimum leg-length dimension shall be readily understandable
>and shall be based on allowing no less than one inch of clearance
>between (1) the top tube of the bicycle and the ground plane and (2)
>the
>crotch measurement of the rider. A girl's style frame shall be
>specified
>in the same way using a corresponding boys' model as a basis."
>
>Sarah
 
L

Luigi de Guzman

Guest
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:04:39 GMT, "Hijo de la Changa"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Sarah Clatterbuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>>
>> Legally, for a shop in the U.S. to sell you a
>> bike, there must be 1" between the top tube and your crotch.

>
>You've got to be kidding. Legally?
>
>Are there government crotch-watchers at every bike shop, or is this a random
>search type o' deal?
>
>Guess I'll have to tell the shop where I bought my penny-farthing that
>they're flirting with the Law.


I'm willing to bet that nobody at the CPSC has ever actually ridden a
bicycle. Then they would know that lawyer lips defeat the purpose of
quick-releases, that lights are necessary for safe night riding, and
that what a cyclist does with his crotch is his or her own damn
business.

-Luigi

>
 
G

GaryT

Guest
I recently did a Fit Kit fitting. My measured dimensions were as follows:

Height : 76 inches Torso Length: 59.5 cm
Foot Length : 29 cm Arm Length: 67 cm
Inseam: 94 cm Shoulder Width: 52 cm
Thigh Length: 44 cm Hand Size: Large

(The inseam measurement used a spring-loaded device that measured from my
pelvic bone, down. This yielded a longer inseam than a typical measurement
would, say, for pants.)

They looked at three main recommended dimensions at this point. The Cockpit
Combination - distance from seatpost-at-saddle to handlebars-through-stem -
was 70 cm. The Saddle-to-Pedal Starting Distance - saddle down seat tube to
bottom of crank arm in a straight line - 101 cm. The Saddle-to-Stem Drop
which yielded a neutral(handlebar height even with saddle) plus or minus 5
cm.

All of this equated to a recommended size in a road bike frame of 62 cm/21".
I ended up with a 21"/Large Cannondale frame. It fits perfectly along with
a few seatpost/saddle/stem adjustments. It seems as if you are looking in a
good range for you. Since you're fairly new to cycling - like myself - I
would recommend a professional fitting if at all possible. They looked at
factors and made recommendations I would never thought to consider.

Good luck with the search and good riding.

--
Gary

"Matt Mencel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Hello...I've recently (past 6 months) gotten into cycling. This summer I
> borrowed a friends old Trek 1200 and rode RAGBRAI for the first time. I'm
> now looking to purchase my own bike and am considering the Trek 1500

....or
> something similar in that price range.
>
> I'm just over 6'2" and have measured my inseam at 86-87cm. I've done a
> little research online and from the stuff I've read I might fit a frame

size
> anywhere from 58cm-63cm. I've read of a few individuals who are around

6'0"
> using a 58 or 60cm frame so I'm guessing that 60cm or more would probably
> fit me best. I'm not looking for the "absolutely perfect" fit, I just

want
> to be comfortable when I ride. My local bike shop has nothing in that

size
> range so I'll have to drive an hour or two away to find a shop with bigger
> stock if I wanted to test ride one. Are there any individuals reading

this
> newsgroup that have similar proportions that could offer up the frame size
> they are using? That would at least give me some good ideas on what to be
> looking for.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
>
 
C

Curtis L. Russell

Guest
On 19 Aug 2004 15:59:39 -0700, [email protected] (Sarah
Clatterbuck) wrote:

>Curtis,
>
>I first read about this in one of Mike Jacobowsky's posts. But, just
>for fun, I found the regulation on the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
>Commission's web site:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/5a3pd
>
>Subsection (c) reads as follows:
>
>"(c) The minimum leg-length dimension shall be readily understandable
>and shall be based on allowing no less than one inch of clearance
>between (1) the top tube of the bicycle and the ground plane and (2)
>the
>crotch measurement of the rider. A girl's style frame shall be
>specified
>in the same way using a corresponding boys' model as a basis."
>
>Sarah


Except that has nothing to do with what can be sold. It says that
there must be an attachment/booklet that demonstrates proper sizing
per the above. Both the purchaser and the seller are free to ignore
the book.

Since most bike sales I've watched don't include anyone going through
what was the little yellow book (in Maryland anyway, still true as of
about six months ago when we purchased our folding bikes), I doubt
many people actually use this bookletas an aid to their bike purchase.
It usually stays safely in the plastic bag until the bike gets home...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
C

Curtis L. Russell

Guest
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:04:39 GMT, "Hijo de la Changa"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>You've got to be kidding. Legally?
>
>Are there government crotch-watchers at every bike shop, or is this a random
>search type o' deal?


They didn't. All the subsections are in reference to the first line,
that:

"A bicycle shall have an instruction manual attached to its frame or
included with the packaged unit."

It isn't a sale requirement; it is an explanation to be included in
the 'manual'.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
G

Glenn Civello

Guest
I'm 6' 1 & 3/4". My inseam is 85.6 cm. I have a Fuji roadbike (flat bars)
that the manufacturer sizes as a 23" frame (which converts to 58.4 cm). I
get about a 1 inch clearance... maybe a tad less. It works for me. Now, I'm
looking to buy a Jamis cross or Fuji touring. The Jamis gives me two
options for frame size: 57cm or 60cm. The Fuji is a 58cm... so I'll
probably end up w/ the Fuji, even though I prefer the Jamis (Nova.) I will
have a chance to ride the Fuji on Wednesday or Thursday, this week, but,
unfortunately, their are no Novas in my area. Getting back to you... the
fact that your inseam is 86-87 has me thinking that a 59 or 60cm would work
for you. I wouldn't go less than 59" though (if I were you.)

Glenn


"the black rose" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Darin McGrew wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, Matt Mencel <[email protected]>

wrote:
> >>I'm just over 6'2" and have measured my inseam at 86-87cm. I've done a
> >>little research online and from the stuff I've read I might fit a frame

size
> >>anywhere from 58cm-63cm. I've read of a few individuals who are around

6'0"
> >>using a 58 or 60cm frame so I'm guessing that 60cm or more would

probably
> >>fit me best. I'm not looking for the "absolutely perfect" fit, I just

want
> >>to be comfortable when I ride. My local bike shop has nothing in that

size
> >>range so I'll have to drive an hour or two away to find a shop with

bigger
> >>stock if I wanted to test ride one. Are there any individuals reading

this
> >>newsgroup that have similar proportions that could offer up the frame

size
> >>they are using? That would at least give me some good ideas on what to

be
> >>looking for.

> >
> >
> > That's about my height and inseam, and I found the standover height of a
> > 60cm (23.5") frame to be a bit "too close for comfort". Yes, I could

ride a
> > bike that size, but I wouldn't be as happy with it. I ended up buying

one
> > with a 56cm (22") frame instead.
> >
> > But ultimately, it's about what fits you, and what feels comfortable to
> > you. Find a bike with the same size frame and wheels as the one you're
> > considering buying and take it for a spin.

>
> Yeah, you just gotta get on them and try them. You might need to drive
> that hour to try different size frames, just to be sure of the fit.
> It's worth taking the time to do that, because you'll be much less
> comfortable on a bike that's the wrong size.
>
> One of my sons rides a 58cm Cannondale -- he's 5'11" and all arms and
> legs and not quite finished growing (he's 18). Ya never know.
>
> -km
>
> --
> the black rose
> proud to be owned by a yorkie
> http://community.webshots.com/user/blackrosequilts