How Can I Tell Frame Size?

[Elisa Francesca]

I keep having the impression that my new bike is too big for me. The vendor insists that for my 1.72
meters, the recommended frame size is 56 inches. A competing vendor suggests that a heavy person
like myself may be happier on one size down, a 53 inch frame, since that would make it easier to
keep a foot on the ground (I cannot start and stop or ride standing).

However, I see no marking or designation on my bike whatsoever that gives its frame size. It could
be made for a 7 footer for all I know. Is there any parameter I can measure to get an idea?

Many thanks,

Elisa Francesca Roselli Ile de France

 

[Arthur Harris]

"Elisa Francesca Roselli" wrote:
> I keep having the impression that my new bike is too big for me. The vendor insists that for my
> 1.72 meters, the recommended frame size is 56 inches. A competing vendor suggests that a heavy
> person like myself may be happier on one size down, a 53 inch frame, since that would make it
> easier to keep a foot on the ground (I cannot start and stop or ride standing).

I think you mean 56 and 53 cm. Frame size is specified by seat tube length. Different manufacturers
use different methods of making this measurement. It is always measured FROM the center of the
bottom bracket. It is measured along the seat tube TO either the top of the seat tube, the top of
the top tube, or the center of the top tube. If the frame has a sloping top tube, it may be measured
to an imaginary point where the top tube would intersect the seat tube IF it were level. As you can
see, it's not easy to compare sizes between different bikes and especially different manufacturers.

In addition, there's more to "frame size" than just the seat tube length. Top tube length is
probably more important as it will determine how stretched out you are on the bike.

Height is not a very accurate way to choose a frame size. For determining seat tube length, your leg
length or "inseam" is the critical parameter. Top tube length should be chosen based on torso and
arm length (as well as personal preferences and type of riding).

If the saddle seems too high on the 56 cm frame, maybe you can lower it a little. Then when you
become comfortable starting and stopping, you could raise it up. Having the saddle too low doesn't
allow you to extend your leg properly. That can limit your power and can cause knee pain.

http://www.sbraweb.org/setup.htm

Art Harris

 

[Elisa Francesca]

Thanks, I'll have a measure along the seat tube when I get home tonight. There is no measurable top-
tube as this is one of those low step-through jobs. I cannot lower the seat much because I'm already
having discomfort on the pedals; what I have had to do is to move it quite far back, so that my legs
have more length to extend forwards, but this makes the distance across the top a little too gaping.
Raising the handlebars, in turn, makes an already very squirrelly bike even more unstable.

EFR

Arthur Harris wrote:

>
> I think you mean 56 and 53 cm. Frame size is specified by seat tube length. Different
> manufacturers use different methods of making this measurement. It is always measured FROM the
> center of the bottom bracket. It is measured along the seat tube TO either the top of the seat
> tube, the top of the top tube, or the center of the top tube. If the frame has a sloping top tube,
> it may be measured to an imaginary point where the top tube would intersect the seat tube IF it
> were level. As you can see, it's not easy to compare sizes between different bikes and especially
> different manufacturers.

 

[Gary Smiley]

If you are having trouble starting or stopping or putting a foot down, then your bike IS too big for
you. You should not have to be uncomfortable in any way. Not only will it interfere with your
enjoyment of bicycling, but it may not be safe as well. I would recommend bring it back to your
vendor and trying out a smaller size.

Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:

> I keep having the impression that my new bike is too big for me. The vendor insists that for my
> 1.72 meters, the recommended frame size is 56 inches. A competing vendor suggests that a heavy
> person like myself may be happier on one size down, a 53 inch frame, since that would make it
> easier to keep a foot on the ground (I cannot start and stop or ride standing).
>
> However, I see no marking or designation on my bike whatsoever that gives its frame size. It could
> be made for a 7 footer for all I know. Is there any parameter I can measure to get an idea?
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Elisa Francesca Roselli Ile de France

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> If you are having trouble starting or stopping or putting a foot down, then your bike IS too big
> for you. You should not have to be uncomfortable in any way. Not only will it interfere with your
> enjoyment of bicycling, but it may not be safe as well. I would recommend bring it back to your
> vendor and trying out a smaller size.

In a previous post, she had said she's trying to put a foot down *while staying in the saddle*. If
you can do that, the bike is usually considered to be too small, not too large, but there are other
factors affecting her riding which necessitate this.

> Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:
>
> > I keep having the impression that my new bike is too big for me. The vendor insists that for my
> > 1.72 meters, the recommended frame size is 56 inches. A competing vendor suggests that a heavy
> > person like myself may be happier on one size down, a 53 inch frame, since that would make it
> > easier to keep a foot on the ground (I cannot start and stop or ride standing).
> >
> > However, I see no marking or designation on my bike whatsoever that gives its frame size.
> > It could be made for a 7 footer for all I know. Is there any parameter I can measure to get
> > an idea?
> >
> > Many thanks,
> >
> > Elisa Francesca Roselli Ile de France
>
>

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

 

[Tanya Quinn]

Elisa Francesca Roselli <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Thanks, I'll have a measure along the seat tube when I get home tonight. There is no measurable
> top-tube as this is one of those low step-through jobs. I cannot lower the seat much because I'm
> already having discomfort on the pedals; what I have had to do is to move it quite far back, so
> that my legs have more length to extend forwards, but this makes the distance across the top a
> little too gaping. Raising the handlebars, in turn, makes an already very squirrelly bike even
> more unstable.
>
> EFR

Hi Elisa, A 56 cm frame works for me, but I'm about 6 cm taller than you are. Really it is the
inseam that matters not your height. Most bikes are made for a typical male, so most women (who tend
to have longer legs and shorter arms for their height) will find the reach long when they have the
height about right. When I bought my bike, the shop changed the stem that came with the bike for a
shorter stem. This will move the handlebars closer without affecting their height or stability.

Tanya

 

[Dave Salovesh]

In <[email protected]>,
Elisa Francesca Roselli <[email protected]>
opined:

> Thanks, I'll have a measure along the seat tube when I get home tonight. There is no measurable
> top-tube as this is one of those low step-through jobs. I cannot lower the seat much because I'm
> already having discomfort on the pedals; what I have had to do is to move it quite far back, so
> that my legs have more length to extend forwards, but this makes the distance across the top a
> little too gaping. Raising the handlebars, in turn, makes an already very squirrelly bike even
> more unstable.

It sounds like you're trying to get an unconventional riding position from a fairly conventional
bicycle. The results will be only moderately satisfactory at best - I suspect they'll be worse
than that.

If I could have made a recommendation before you got this bike, I would have suggested the
Giant "Revive".

It's a one-size frame for riders from 152cm to 192 cm, so it is clearly very adjustable. It's a semi-
recumbent, designed so you -can- put your feet comfortably on the ground while seated.

--
[email protected] | depending, of course, | REPLACE example WITH Dave Salovesh | on your
perspective | mindspring TO EMAIL ME (After more than a decade on USENET , it's finally come
to this ^^^)

 

[Rick Onanian]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:05:57 +0100, Elisa Francesca Roselli
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Thanks, I'll have a measure along the seat tube when I get home tonight. There is no measurable top-
>tube as this is one of those low step-through jobs. I

Measure an imaginary top tube. I've seen instructions for doing this; just measure from near the top
of the seat tube to the head tube.

>EFR
--
Rick Onanian

 

[Elisa Francesca]

Dave Salovesh wrote:

> If I could have made a recommendation before you got this bike, I would have suggested the Giant
> "Revive".
>
> It's a one-size frame for riders from 152cm to 192 cm, so it is clearly very adjustable. It's a
> semi-recumbent, designed so you -can- put your feet comfortably on the ground while seated.

I knew about the Revive when I was researching my new bike purchase. I ruled it out because the
sloping front stem cannot take a basket, which I find essential, and also because there was no-where
in town where I could look at one or try the famous new revolutionary seating posture. My emails to
Giant in France to find a reseller of the model met with no answer. The one poster to this group who
_did_ manage to try one (you perhaps?) remarked that it was rather squirelly. I was also afraid
that, if I ordered one untried and sight-unseen and then didn't like it, it would be hard to resell
because of its unconventioal design, high price and an extremely conventional, obsessively VTT
oriented market. However, I'm still very curious to try one out. It is my constant complaint that
almost all of the catalogue models that interest me - Giant Revive, Energy and Halfway, Dahon Speed
TR and Helios, Sparta and Union models
- are simply unavailable for trial anywhere near where I live.

EFR Ile de France

 

[Tom Sherman]

Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:

> I knew about the Revive when I was researching my new bike purchase. I ruled it out because the
> sloping front stem cannot take a basket, which I find essential, and also because there was no-
> where in town where I could look at one or try the famous new revolutionary seating posture....

There are semi-recumbent bikes from the 1920's, so I would not classify the Giant Revive as
revolutionary. It is also not unique in the market, as there are other alternatives, such as the
RANS Fusion (likely to be unavailable in Europe at a reasonable price, however). <
http://www.ransbikes.com/2004Bikes/Fusion.htm >

Tom Sherman – Close to 41½ N, 90½ W