"Ryan" <
[email protected]> wrote:
> I am currently looking to purchasing a bike. It has been a
> few years since I have ridden partially because of poor
> bike fitment I believe. I am well above average height.
> 6'7" with a 38" inseam. I weigh 200 lbs. Proportionally my
> legs are longer compared to my torso then an average
> person. My main concern is finding a bike that fits
> correctly for me. Do you think a custom bike will be the
> only route to go for me?
No, you can do fine with commercially available frames if
you and your dealer are willing to swap out a few
components. You'll likely need a stem with more rise and
extension than stock, perhaps a longer seatpost depending
on the frame height and the original seatpost size. I'm
taller than you are and about twice as heavy now, but your
fit concerns are similar to those I faced in my first few
years of riding. I always managed to make do nicely with
stock frames.
A good starting point for saddle height is 1.09 times your
barefoot standing inseam, measured from the saddle top to
the pedal top at maximum extension. Start with your
handlebars approximately level with the saddle and adjust
from there according to your tastes and abilities.
Horizontal extension from seat to bars is somewhat arbitrary
and mostly a matter of taste, but I find that if my (flat)
handlebars are anywhere close to one cubit (elbow to
fingertips) from the saddle nose, I feel too confined to
ride hard. I usually opt for about 3" to 4" more than this.
I mention this measure because it used to be an old-timer's
rule of thumb for fitting a drop-bar bike.
In days of yore, you rode the tallest frame you could stand
over (or whichever one left you with a "fistful" of seatpost
exposed), and fitted it with a stem that had a horizontal
extension enough for your fingertips rested on the
handlebars when your elbow was on the saddle nose.
These fit methods are occasionally faulty, and increased
variety of frame and component shapes have rendered such
conventional wisdom even less reliable, but they are not
entirely without merit. They can help with the primary
undertaking, which is establishing an effective spatial
relationship between the bars, saddle, and pedals. The
secondary geometrical relationship is between those three
points and the contact patches of the tires, which dictates
some of the bike's handling qualities.
The shapes of the bike frame and components that give you
these primary and secondary geometrical characteristics are
less important, which is why bikes that appear wildly
different can function basically the same from a rider
standpoint.
> If so who would you recommend? $2,000 - $2,500 would be
> about my limit for a complete bike.
Rivendell make a bike called the Redwood in 65cm and 68cm,
intended for tall riders and using quite traditional rider
position and fit principles, that sells new and complete for
around $1500. That would be a decent choice if you don't
mind spending some money.
http://www.rivendellbicycles.com/-
html/bikes_romulusframes.html
I would definitely refrain from spending more than that
until you've developed some personal opinions on what works
well for you and what doesn't. For instance, I have found
that I prefer longer cranks than those available on stock
bikes, or those compatible with low bottom bracket heights.
There are many tall riders who like short cranks just fine,
though. A rider my height who likes 170mm cranks has a very
different set of options in suitable bike frames than I do
if I want to use 200mm cranks.
As you develop opinions about what you like or dislike,
must or must not have in a bike, that in turn will
determine whether you must have a custom-built frame to
suit your preferences. But first you should put in lots of
miles on a regular bike so you can figure those things out
for yourself.
Chalo Colina
